Royal Assent

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	European Parliament (Representation) Act,
	National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Act,
	Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act,
	Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act,
	Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Act.

Courts Bill [HL]

Report received.
	Clause 1[The general duty]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 2, line 3, leave out "business of the courts referred to in subsection (1)" and insert "way in which he has discharged his general duty in relation to the courts"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, moving an amendment in Committee on this point, asked me to assure the House that the annual report would cover more than just the business of the courts. This amendment underlines the assurance I gave in Committee that the operations of the new agency will be covered in the annual report.
	The amendment provides that the Lord Chancellor must publish an annual report which covers the,
	"way in which he has discharged his general duty".
	His general duty, as defined in Clause 1, requires him to,
	"ensure that there is an efficient and effective system to support the carrying on of the business"
	of the courts,
	"and that appropriate services are provided for those courts".
	I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding to the concerns I expressed in Committee. It is a helpful start. I hope the day goes on as usefully.
	My amendment in Committee referred to the manner in which the Lord Chancellor would discharge his duty. I was taken to task by the drafting wizard on my own Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who made it clear that the word "manner" was not felicitous. I was trying to find another word. The Government saved me that search by finding the right one. I support the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 2, line 3, at end insert—
	"(5) The Lord Chancellor shall discharge his general duty in relation to the courts in accordance with an annual national strategic plan ("the national plan").
	(6) The national plan must be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before the beginning of the year to which it relates.
	(7) The national plan may be modified by the Lord Chancellor during the year to which it relates provided such modification is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament prior to its being made.
	(8) The Lord Chancellor shall discharge his general duty in relation to the courts in each of the areas specified under section 4(2) in accordance with an annual local strategic plan for each area ("a local plan").
	(9) The Lord Chancellor shall submit a local plan to each area justice board established under section 4 containing his proposals for discharging his general duty in relation to the courts in that board's area.
	(10) A local plan must be approved by the board to which it has been submitted before the beginning of the year to which it relates.
	(11) The Lord Chancellor may modify a local plan during the year to which it relates provided such modification is approved by the board to which it has been submitted prior to its being made."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I have agreed a large grouping of amendments so that we can debate the core issues underlying the Government's creation of a unified courts administration and its impact on the administration of the magistrates', Crown and county courts.
	Amendments Nos. 2 to 17, 162 and 163 are mine and are supported by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Phillips of Sudbury; the Government have put down Amendments Nos. 18, 20 and 24. Amendment No. 19 is my amendment to government Amendment No. 18 and Amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 25 are Liberal Democrat amendments to government amendments. I wholeheartedly support the Liberal Democrat amendments.
	I apologise in advance for taking much longer than would be my normal custom in proposing the amendments. That is not simply because of the huge group of amendments but because we are here debating changes to a system of the administration of the magistrates' courts that has been settled for more than a generation. It is right that we put on record today, for both magistrates and the wider public, how we have arrived at the position we take now.
	The objective of the opposition parties and the Cross Benches has been to try to overcome the objections to the Government's proposals in the Bill expressed across the Chamber in Committee, at cols. 1062 to 1072 and 1088 to 1118 of the Official Report, on 28th January. The sheer number of pages reflects the level of concern of Members of the Committee.
	We have had to develop our position from that which we argued in Committee to take account of the views expressed in those debates and subsequently by the Magistrates' Association and the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees. We had to accept that we did not command substantial support to carry forward our first position. I took particular note of the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I welcome the fact that, as ever, both noble Lords are in their places. They argued that any system created by the Bill must work as appropriately for Crown and county courts as for magistrates' courts.
	Since then, the Government have been left in no doubt about the unpopularity of their original proposals among magistrates. Letters have flooded into the LCD from chairs of Benches in every quarter of the United Kingdom. I know because they were kind enough to copy those letters to me. The one point of agreement for the Government from the chairs of Benches and noble Lords is that the organisation of the courts should move forward to a unified courts administration.
	Before the Easter Recess, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I had a meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. I thank her and her officials for the time they spent with us and the productive results of that meeting. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, was unfortunately unable to attend but has been kept in the loop throughout the process.
	Over the recess, the Government then tabled a vast number of amendments covering the whole Bill. Those have generally improved the Bill—indeed, I am tempted to say out of all recognition. But there is still progress to be made. The amendments to Clauses 4 and 5 go some way to meeting our objections, but four significant objections remain. If they are addressed, then, and only then, can we accept the Government's new clauses.
	Our objections to new clauses 4 and 5 are represented by the opposition amendments to government amendments today. Those four amendments are Amendment No. 19 in my name and Amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 25 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Phillips. I will of course leave the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Phillips, to put the case for their amendments in detail.
	Amendment No. 19, in my name, refers to the importance of courts boards being coterminous with police forces. I have left a degree of flexibility in the amendment so that the number of courts boards may change if and when the number of police forces changes in the future. However, the principle remains constant. We debated it at length in Committee, so I shall not do so today. The amendment would ensure that courts boards are local in their extent and effect, which is vital to maintain the local nature of the delivery of justice that has proved so important to the success of the magistrates' courts system. That local involvement, influence and responsibility must continue into the unified courts administration.
	I am also aware that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern has some concerns about one part of the drafting of government amendments. I am delighted to see him in the Chamber today, and I am sure that he will put his case later.
	Since our last debate on the matter, the Government have held their consultation exercise and completed it. They sent a letter on the results of that exercise to me and to other noble Lords who have taken part in the debates. It says:
	"There is also a clear message emerging that the 42 criminal justice areas should be the building block for the new organisation and that, at least initially, the number of Boards should follow suit, although the particular needs of London needed to be looked at closely".
	Amendment No. 19 would achieve just that. As I am in such harmony with the results of the consultation, I have hopes that the Government will wish to accept my amendment. If they feel that it is not properly drafted, I will give them the opportunity to say so and promise to bring it back at Third Reading. I wait with bated breath.
	I turn briefly to outline the purposes of the amendments to Clause 1, to put on record what we are trying to achieve. However, to save time I shall refer only to the points on which they differ from the government amendments.
	Our amendments rename the dreaded CACs—the acronym infelicitously given by the Government—area justice boards. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, conjured up that name from the ether, and I give him credit for it. It is an appropriate name to convey the fact that we believe that the boards should be local and businesslike, with functions to match. I am pleased that the Government have abandoned that dreaded word "CAC" and given those bodies new life under the businesslike name "courts board", which is a definite improvement.
	Our amendments would, in general, give Parliament the right to approve the national business plan; give the area justice boards the right to accept or reject the local business plan; allow the Lord Chancellor to submit a modified plan to both Parliament and the area justice board; give the area justice board the right to give or refuse consent to the appointment by the Lord Chancellor of the chief officer of the area; make the Lord Chancellor have regard to the need to ensure that the area justice boards were coterminous with police areas; and, if the Lord Chancellor specified a different area, require him to lay before Parliament a statement giving his reasons. The amendments would also ensure that there were two magistrates rather than one on the board and that appointments were made under the Nolan system. Finally, it would provide for the regulations that govern Clause 5 to be issued by order. That package provided a good basis for our discussion with the Government in the past month.
	Amendment No. 3, inserting a new Clause after Clause 1, is a retabling of an amendment from the Committee stage, so I shall not detain noble Lords long on it. The amendment would give a statutory basis to the courts agency that the Lord Chancellor intends to establish and set out clearly in the Bill the functions of the agency. Since I moved that amendment, and having had a meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, the Government have kindly sent me a written statement of the legal advice that they have received as to why they rejected my original amendment. I was not impressed in Committee simply to be told, "You can't have that because it has not been done before". That is not how we work. The Government have kindly gone much further than that and given full legal advice as to why it would be inappropriate in law to have two seats of power in a national administration—one in the Lord Chancellor's Department and one locally. I should be grateful if the Minister would put on record what that advice is, and put the advice in the Library for other noble Lords to consult.
	We are now prepared not to press our amendments to Clause 1, or those consequential upon them, although we regret that. We accept government new Clauses 4 and 5, but only if our four remaining objections are addressed. Since Easter, the Magistrates' Association has carried out its own consultation and has published a detailed paper saying why it accepts all the government amendments. At the end of that paper, it says that it accepts our modest amendments to the government amendments. The Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees accepts our amendments to the government amendments, but it continues to have very grave concerns about the Government's position. I have received a few letters from chairs of benches so far; no doubt noble Lords and Members in another place will receive many more as the Bill progresses.
	I believe that we can still make progress. Our amendments to the government amendments make that limited but practical and vital progress. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Anelay has gone to a tremendous amount of trouble with this rather complicated group of amendments, but they are fundamental. Up to a point they overlap and coincide with amendments in the same group tabled by the Government. This breaks new ground, which is necessary bearing in mind that the magistrates' courts are being transferred from the Home Secretary's responsibility to that of the Lord Chancellor.
	In basic principle, however, the views put forward by my noble friend Lady Anelay would be workable and are sound. Therefore, I hope that the Government will feel that even if they wish to modify some of the detail, the views that my noble friend Lady Anelay has put forward should be accepted.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, mention has been made of a difficulty that I have with new Clause 5 which the Government have proposed. To my mind, a perhaps completely novel procedure—if it is not completely novel, it is certainly exceptional—has been adopted for modifying the statutory functions of the boards as prescribed in new Clause 5. It provides that the Lord Chancellor can by guidance supplement the functions conferred on the boards by the statute. I am not aware of any other situation in which guidance has been used as an instrument for amending primary legislation. There is a good deal of talk, as there has been over the years, about the propriety of amending statutes by secondary legislation, but this is a step further. Without the ordinary process for such change, in practical terms, it is difficult to know how a person who is not very familiar with the statutes can in years to come find out the current functions of these boards. I do not think that it would occur to one to look through the guidance issued to find the changes.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I have my name to a number of the amendments in this group. From my point of view, and I should think from that of many noble Lords, placing such a huge number of crucial amendments in one group makes it extremely difficult to have sensible and effective discussion of them. I much regret this grouping.
	I speak in support particularly of the early amendments in this group in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, my noble friend Lord Goodhart and myself, particularly Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 which make amendments to Clause 1 and would give the new courts boards more significant power. The proposed arrangements, even as amended by the new set of amendments tabled by the Lord Chancellor, do not give any power to the courts boards.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, implied, from the Government's point of view our amendments in this group are a good deal milder than the ones which we debated at length late on the night of 28th January. Many noble Lords who are now in the Chamber took part in that extended and important debate. I believe that these amendments deal with the principal objection raised—with which I can concur or at least sympathise—namely, that there needs to be a separation of powers between the executive under the so-called unified system and the courts boards, that requirement being particularly acute vis-à-vis Crown and county courts, which of course are part of the new aegis with magistrates' courts.
	As we all know, justices of the peace have in effect run their own courts and made their own decisions in relation thereto for nigh on 1,000 years. So the amendments at the beginning of the group to which I am speaking keep the board non-executive, but give it one specific power—namely that of approving annual local strategic plans which the Lord Chancellor would be required to produce to them as a subset of the annual national strategic plan that the amendment would require him to produce and have approved by each House.
	That may sound a major change from what is already in the Bill, but I do not believe that it is. The Lord Chancellor already has the obligation, under Clause 1(4), to produce an annual report after the event, so to speak. However, in his own new amendment to Clause 5, he gives the new courts boards a duty,
	"to consider draft and final business plans relating to those courts".
	So the Government seem to have conceded that the preparation in advance of plans which need to be considered by courts boards is already an agreed point. Of course we welcome that. However, we go further and say that those annual local plans need to be approved by the local courts boards.
	I should say now that Amendment No. 21 in my name—I have to refer to it now because it is in the same group—requires that those draft plans are draft strategy as well as business plans. I put the amendment forward in a probing way in the hope that the Minister can assure me that the phrase already in their amendment, "final business plans", is intended to be construed widely to include matters of strategy in relation to local courts.
	So what these early amendments in the group boil down to is that local plans do not come into effect until approved by each courts board. We believe that that will go a considerable way towards amending what we and very many magistrates—indeed, a growing number of magistrates—see as the principal defect of the proposed unified system. If that approval were part of the Bill, we would expect that, in practice, because of the need for it, there will be a much closer and more effective interaction between the boards and their chief executives. Short of giving the boards decisive powers, which we are no longer seeking, this arrangement gives each board a practical, irreducible assurance that their views really will count.
	The Minister's repeated powerful and eloquent protestations throughout the consideration of the Bill and in the very many letters that she has written which I have seen—protestations about proper consultation, proper regard for the views of boards and so on—can provide only, as I am sure she must admit, a limited and temporary comfort. Ministers change. Governments get overthrown. Financial and policy priorities change.
	It is because we are dealing with the ancient, established, embedded institution of magistrates' courts that we do not believe the present board arrangements of an advisory and recommendatory nature are sufficient.
	I am aware that our amendment requiring approval by local boards provides no tie-breaker for potential deadlock between a board and its chief executive. That dilemma is often found in arrangements for boards of directors in private companies and in certain types of contract. I have come across it many times in my professional life, and there are two schools of thought about it. One school, the more conventional, is that there must be a tie-breaker. The other—the one which we prefer in this context—is that the boards, being as they are composed of a much wider group than most magistrates' courts committees currently are, will in effect have to come to a compromise solution with the chief executive. I believe that they will. However, if the Government consider that to be the stumbling block to this amendment—we shall soon hear whether it is—there is time enough for a sensible contrary view with a suggested tie-breaking arrangement to be considered at the next stage.
	I should like to say a word about the depth and extent of discontent in the magistracy over these central arrangements, which as I said are not essentially altered by the amendments tabled by the Lord Chancellor. In a nutshell, all the decisive powers of lay justices in running their own courts are being removed. Those powers are, as I said, being replaced by only advisory and recommendatory powers. Therefore, if push comes to shove, and of course it will, the executive agency and its employees will rule the roost in the future. I think that one can reasonably predict that few of the chief officers will have hands-on experience of magistrates' courts, or indeed of any courts. I could give examples of chief administration officers under the present regime who have been appointed to their position without any knowledge or experience whatever of the law or courts. Not merely that but on the new courts boards the magistrates, far from having, as they presently do, a majority, will be entitled only to a single representative. En passant I speak to Amendment No. 25 in the group which stands in my name. A minimum of two on these new boards for magistrates must surely make sense and go a little way towards mitigating their extreme discomfort with, and lack of confidence in, the proposed arrangements.
	On 26th April a meeting took place in London attended by 150 people, most of them elected chairs of magistrates' courts Benches, of which there are around 300. So nearly half the chairs of magistrates' Benches attended the meeting. They came from 37 of the 42 magistrates' courts committees. I am sure the House will be interested to know that that extraordinarily—how shall I put it?—responsible, respectable and—

Lord Renton: Representative.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I adopt the epithet "representative" and add to it the fact that magistrates are extremely cautious of anything remotely approaching politics. They feel so strongly about what is going on and about the inadequate advocacy of their point of view that they have now formed a national forum which, somewhat late in the day but not too late, will put their views in relation to this and other aspects of the Bill and, indeed, in relation to the many statutory instruments and orders that will follow its enactment.
	Whatever the Government may think, there is now a powerful and growing sense that the price to be paid for the new unified service as it stands under the Bill is too high and against the public interest. Whatever the Government may think, there is also a settled conviction that without an amendment such as the one we are discussing—it is fairly minimalist—the morale of lay justices, and hence the retention of justices of the peace and recruitment of quality new ones, will be progressively undermined. There is much anecdotal evidence coming through even at this stage of magistrates throwing in the towel and saying that they are fed up with the bureaucratic demands being placed upon them, let alone the never ending complexities of their role, and also of a failure to attract the very sort of rugged, quality, experienced individuals who make the best magistrates.
	It is an irony that we are discussing a measure which will centralise and inevitably bureaucratise the running of the courts in this country at the very same time as the other place is discussing the very reverse process vis-à-vis the NHS. Foundation hospitals are put forward by the Government, in my view broadly correctly, on the basis that the centralised, bureaucratic, managerialist system that prevails within the NHS is simply incapable of delivering the goods, most specifically in terms of its impact on the morale of the staff of the NHS and the doctors. That has never been so low. More and more doctors are retiring at the earliest possible moment. We have a crisis of manpower or womanpower on the wards and elsewhere.
	I believe that so much of the thrust of the Bill, especially as regards the inability to see the impact that it is having, and will have, on the morale of the magistracy, is moving in precisely the opposite direction from the insights which underlie the proposals vis-à-vis foundation hospitals. The endless organisational tinkering from on high, which has characterised successive governments' stewardships of the NHS, has yielded less than nothing. As I say, morale is crucial.
	It is not even as if there is an assurance in the Bill, or in the later amendments of the Lord Chancellor, that the 42 boards, themselves only brought into being under the Access to Justice Act 1999, will be retained. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly said, this is a minimalist amendment that we believe must be placed in the Bill. The logic of so much of the Government's argument with regard to the reorganisation will lead inexorably, many people believe, to ever greater local justice areas justified on the same assumptions of economies of scale, consistency and increased flexibility which underlie the reasoning put forward for this central and unified structure.
	The boundary problems between courts about which the Government have made much play—some of it justified, some of it exaggerated—will always exist so long as there are boundaries. One begins to wonder whether the new managerial regime will not over time press for bigger and bigger and fewer and fewer areas.
	Many Bench chairmen have said or written to me to the effect that although the unified service will be easier to control, the quality of what is controlled will perforce decline unless the safeguards contained in the amendments proposed by noble Lords from this side of the House are put in place. It is rather like an underpowered car that may be easier to drive but only because it has less punch under the bonnet.
	If one really wants independent justices of the peace of the highest quality, one must expect some turbulence from them, some lack of consistency between one court and another and some awkwardness. But surely we are wise enough in this House to realise that there are times when efficiency and effectiveness—the great mantra of this Government—work in opposite directions. Bureaucratic convenience and managerial control may make the paperwork neater and more consistent—several people have pointed out to me some of the micro-criticisms raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, in her speech on 28th January—but the long-term basic effectiveness of magistrates' courts as a whole is undermined through loss of independence, loss of a sense of autonomy and the accompanying loss of esteem. As I say, that is not a price worth paying.
	I am sorry to have spoken at some length but, as I say, we are dealing with a group containing some 20 amendments. If the Government do not listen to me and noble Lords on these Benches, I hope very much indeed that they will take heed of the very many letters which I understand have been written by a great many highly distinguished lay justices on this very set of issues.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I wish to address the general debate on this large group of amendments and also specifically to address Amendment No. 22, on which mine is the lead name.
	Lord Justice Auld's report recommended that the administration of the magistrates' courts should be merged with the administration of the other courts in England and Wales and that the staff now employed by the magistrates' courts committees should therefore be merged with the staff of the courts agency. We on these Benches accepted that principle. We acknowledge that it is difficult to justify having a single authority for the management of the county courts, the Crown Court and the High Court for the whole of England and Wales in the form of a courts agency but at the same time retaining 42 separate authorities for the management of the magistrates' courts.
	The problem thrown up by this proposed merger was how a single national agency could combine sufficient local input into decisions about the administration of the courts. The Bill as it stands and, indeed, as it has stood ever since it was published, gives what are called the court administration councils powers only to make general recommendations.
	In Committee amendments were put down in the joint names of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to turn the court administration councils into corporate bodies which had management powers over the administration of the courts in their areas. It was recognised that that was a holding operation. We recognised that those amendments would in effect have retained most of the powers of the magistrates' courts committees and, indeed, extended them to the other courts, and thereby the objectives of the Bill would have been defeated.
	We have therefore come back on Report with a more limited group of amendments. I draw particular attention to Amendment No. 2, which provides for what can be described as codetermination. Under it, the Lord Chancellor must produce both national and local strategic plans for the work of the courts agency nationally and in each area. It suggests that the national plan must be approved by Parliament, and the local plans by what we called area justice boards, which I think will now be called courts boards.
	The amendment deliberately created a potential deadlock. In order to get the local strategic plan, the Lord Chancellor and the boards would have to reach an agreement. Along with other reasons, that stimulated a response from the Government, who produced their own amendments to Clauses 4 and 5 and a substantial new schedule before Schedule 1. Those government amendments come some way towards what we and the magistrates wanted to achieve. They strengthen the role of the courts boards in the Bill.
	One important feature is that the amendments have proved acceptable to the Magistrates' Association. That is something that we have to take into account as an important consideration. However, the proposals are not acceptable to all members of the Magistrates' Association. In particular, they seem to have caused problems with the chairs of the various benches.
	Even if we limit ourselves to the government amendments, we can see that they plainly still need strengthening. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, the Magistrates' Association has approved four amendments to the government amendments. The lead name on one of those is hers, that on another is mine, and that of my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury is on the other two. Those are Amendments Nos. 19, 21, 22 and 25.
	We certainly support Amendment No. 19, spoken to by the noble Baroness, on the importance of the coterminosity of the areas to be created under the Bill with the existing 42 areas. Most magistrates are anxious that there should not be major interference with the existing boundaries, which have themselves been introduced only fairly recently.
	I understand that a merger might be welcome in some areas. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, who is unable to be here, has indicated that there is some pressure for a single courts board to cover the whole of Wales—it is currently split into four areas—and perhaps to include Cheshire as well, to maintain an area based on the old Wales and Chester circuit. Amendment No. 19 is not prescriptive. It would not prevent a merger where that was the wish of the people involved in the area, and we are happy to support it.
	My noble friend Lord Phillips explained Amendment No. 21, so I shall turn to Amendment No. 22. The Government's Amendment No. 20 proposes a new Clause 5, the first subsection of which states:
	"Each courts board is under a duty, in accordance with guidance under this section . . . to scrutinise, review and make recommendations about the way in which the Lord Chancellor is discharging his general duty in relation to the courts with which the board is concerned, and . . . for the purposes mentioned . . . to consider draft and final business plans relating to those courts".
	Subsection (2) then states:
	"In discharging his general duty in relation to the courts, the Lord Chancellor must give due consideration to recommendations provided by the boards under subsection (1)".
	We believe that that needs strengthening. As an alternative to the original suggestion of deadlock we propose that, if the Lord Chancellor rejects a recommendation as to the final version of a business plan, he must give the board whose recommendations he has rejected written reasons for doing so. I can understand his reluctance to accept the possibility of deadlock, but it is at the very least essential that he give serious consideration to the recommendations of boards about the business plans that affect them.
	The need to give reasons concentrates the mind very considerably. The courts agency officer responsible will have to say in writing, "Is this recommendation really unacceptable? If so, why?". He will have to say to himself, "Can I explain the reasons in words that can be understood and accepted by members of the boards?". Ultimately, those reasons would have to stand up to judicial review, so they would have to be serious. I believe that Amendment No. 22 would significantly strengthen the position of the courts boards. Without it, their position is still plainly too weak.
	There are two further amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Phillips. Amendment No. 21 has already been mentioned, but we also strongly support Amendment No. 25. The existing magistrates' courts committees are entirely in the hands of the magistrates. Replacing them with courts boards will require only one magistrate. Of course, the remit of the courts boards is wider than that of the magistrates' courts committees, because it includes the other courts. However, the magistrates' courts are plainly the backbone of our criminal justice system. They deal with the great majority of criminal cases that come to trial in this country.
	If there were only one magistrate on the board, he might be ill or have some unavoidable other commitment. There could therefore be a meeting of the courts board at which no magistrate would be present. That would be absolutely wrong. The Bill would say that at least one magistrate must be a member of the board, which does not prevent there being more than one. However, we believe that there should be a guarantee of at least two magistrates.
	On these Benches, we are very much in agreement with the line taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. We hope that the Government will be willing to accept the amendments proposed to their amendments.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I want to say straightaway how grateful I am to noble Lords who have spoken, and to single out the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for their very constructive contributions to the development of the clauses. As the noble Baroness rightly said, we had a very productive meeting following from Committee, and I am very grateful to all those who participated in it.
	The Government have listened carefully to the concerns raised in Committee. As a number of noble Lords have said, we have tabled a very substantial package of amendments, which we hope will satisfy those concerned. I am pleased to acknowledge the satisfaction that the noble Baroness indicated to many of the amendments. I will seek to concentrate on those issues that still cause concern. For the sake of completeness, and to make sure that there is clarity on the issue because all the amendments have been lumped together, I shall take a little time to go through where we are.
	These amendments rename the court administration councils as courts boards. I know that the noble Baroness and others have found that old name lacking in felicity. But the change to courts boards is not a mere change of name; it is a much more robust statutory definition of their function. The amendments make clear that the boards will have an ongoing role in relation to the courts in their area—scrutinising local plans and reviewing their implementation, and contributing their own ideas. The amendments guarantee that boards will have that role.
	The amendments make provision for much more detail to be provided in secondary legislation, through regulations. Our intention is that those regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so that Parliament has the opportunity to examine the detail of the new organisation.
	I turn to Amendment No. 18—the proposed new Clause 4. The new clause clarifies the procedure for setting and altering the courts boards' areas; requires that each courts board will be known by a name specified in an order; and provides that a new schedule, setting out the constitution and procedure of courts boards, is to have effect. Provisions about the membership of the boards which are currently found in Clause 4 are set out in this schedule.
	The amendment deals with a concern raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, that boards should have a say in what their boundaries are to be. Before making any order altering the boards' areas, the Lord Chancellor must consult those affected; and the original order which establishes the areas will be subject to affirmative resolution, so that Parliament is able to ensure that the area structure is appropriate.
	Amendment No. 19, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, proposes an amendment to the new Clause 4. It would require the Lord Chancellor to,
	"have regard to the desirability",
	of coterminosity with the police areas in specifying the courts boards' boundaries under Clause 4(2).
	I understand that there remains a desire to create an express "link" to the criminal justice areas. We do not object to the idea that the Lord Chancellor must bear in mind the structure of other criminal justice agencies in specifying the areas for the courts boards—indeed, as the noble Baroness rightly said, we have already said that the 42 criminal justice areas will be the building blocks of the courts boards' areas. But there are a great many other factors which must also be taken into account—the effective fit with other agencies in the civil and family jurisdictions; the needs and nature of local communities; the volume of workload in each area; and the distribution of court houses.
	Participants in discussion groups emphasised the need to take into account the needs of different parts of the country—Wales and London in particular. I am also aware that on the Wales and Chester circuits there is particularly strong feeling because of the historical links between Wales and Chester, and that they may wish to have a joint board. Those are issues that we must take seriously and listen to, because they may affect how matters will be managed.
	The implication of this amendment is that the link to the 42 areas is the single most important factor and an end in itself. With the greatest respect, it is not. The single most important factor is that the structure chosen must support the effective and efficient administration of the courts—it must enable us to deliver a better service across England and Wales. That must be the overriding criterion. In order to do so, we must take into account the sensitivities and needs of those in different areas of the country and try, if we can, to give effect to the voices that we are hearing in regard to those issues.
	Our amendment provides that the order specifying the areas will be by affirmative resolution, so that Parliament can ensure that the structure selected is appropriate—bearing in mind all the criteria I have mentioned—and so that Members of this House and another place will have an opportunity to have their say.
	I gently suggest that the amendment suffers from the same defect as one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in Committee: it refers to the police areas, implying that the courts boards should share the same boundaries as the police. I know that the noble Baroness's intention is that courts boards should share the same boundaries as most of the criminal justice agencies—that is to say, the 43 police authority areas, but with the Metropolitan and City of London police areas treated as one.
	New Clause 5, proposed in government Amendment No. 20, sets out a more robust statutory definition of the role of the courts boards—to,
	"scrutinise, review and make recommendations",
	about the way in which the Lord Chancellor is discharging his duty, and in particular to scrutinise draft and final business plans. This puts into statute what we had set out in a published statement; namely, that the boards will contribute to the development of local strategy and keep the delivery of that strategy under review. So I am happy to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that his analysis of that point is correct.
	The amendment makes clearer how guidance issued to the boards will be used: to explain how they should carry out their functions, in particular their role in relation to local business plans. That aspect of the role is fundamental. It enables the boards to influence priorities and the way in which resources—staff, estates and financial resources—are used to deliver services in their area.
	The new clause does not include the limitation of courts boards' remit to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, objected in Committee. This clarifies our intention that courts boards will have a local focus, but that they should be able to influence the national framework within which they work.
	Amendment No. 21, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, seeks to amend proposed new Clause 5. It would require courts boards to scrutinise draft and final "strategy" and business plans. As I have said, our intention is that final business plans will set out how resources will be used to run the courts in the area to improve performance and to deliver services which meet local needs—in other words, the strategy for the area. They will include the area's estate strategy; its staffing structures, and its recruitment and retention strategy; spending priorities for the year; and any local projects.
	In the light of that clarification, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press his amendment. I note, if I may respectfully say so, a thumbs up from the noble Lord, so I have taken that as his assent.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for her remarks. However, all the examples she gave related to financial matters. I was seeking clarification on whether this would include policy issues as well as financial and estate matters—as I thought she was saying.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, "strategy" will include the broad spectrum. We have no difficulty with the issues that the noble Lord raises as regards local areas.
	Amendment No. 22, standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Thomas of Gresford, seeks to amend the proposed new Clause 5. It would require the Lord Chancellor to give written reasons to a board if he were to reject its recommendations on a final business plan.
	I believe that what the noble Lords want to achieve is to create an additional incentive to encourage the Lord Chancellor to think carefully before rejecting a board's views. I reassure the noble Lord that there is already a very clear incentive in the Bill: one of the reasons for giving the boards a statutory identity was to give them their own "voice"; I do not doubt that they will be quick to object if they feel that their views are being unfairly disregarded.
	We intend that boards and chief officers will work in partnership to develop the plans for their area—that requires a certain amount of freedom for each party to contribute and to discuss the plans. At what point would we consider that a recommendation had been "rejected" for the purposes of this amendment? Would that be when a chief officer first rejects it, or when the national chief executive gets involved? Must the Lord Chancellor personally issue the rejection? Or should written reasons be provided at every stage of the process? That sort of relationship does not sound much like a partnership.
	We have provided in new subsection (5) that the procedures to be followed in relation to business plans are to be set out in guidance; I would fully expect that to provide that, if the Lord Chancellor were to finalise a business plan without the agreement of the courts board, the board would be entitled to an explanation in writing. Giving written reasons is an appropriate matter for such guidance rather than for the Bill itself. Other matters which the guidance might cover could be the length of time that courts boards should be given to consider draft business plans; the information that boards need; and guidance on when they should take their recommendations to the agency chief executive or even to the Lord Chancellor personally. It could also define a whole range of circumstances in which boards would be entitled to an explanation about what the Lord Chancellor intended to do with their recommendations, and not only their recommendations about business plans. There may be other matters about which they want a written explanation and they should rightfully be entitled to that.
	Within that context, it would seem rather odd to single out one aspect of the procedure for inclusion in the Bill and to leave the other aspects to one side. That would be a productive way of responding to that issue. Our intention is to have the draft guidance available when the regulations will be debated so that Members will have the opportunity to scrutinise the whole package.
	In light of the assurance that that is one of the matters that would be included in the guidance I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
	I turn to government Amendment No. 24, which contains a new schedule. The amendment creates a power to make regulations about the appointment of members of courts boards; the selection of chairmen; terms of office and provisions about resignation, suspension or removal from office; the procedure of boards; and the validation of proceedings in the event of a vacancy or defect in appointment. I hope that the House will be content that the opportunity for scrutiny of such regulations means that the Lord Chancellor will not have unbridled power to appoint and remove members from the boards on a whim.
	The amendment contains a redraft of the categories of membership. It makes it absolutely clear that the numbers set out in the Bill are minima not maxima. It provides that lay justice members must be assigned to a local justice area that is at least partly in the board's area. That point was drawn from an amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who is in his place. It provides that all board members must be selected from one of the Bill's four categories. The Lord Chancellor would not therefore have discretion to appoint members who do not qualify under those categories.
	I turn to Amendment No. 25. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, proposes a further amendment which would require a minimum of two magistrates. I make no apology for repeating what I said many times in Committee; that is, that the Bill sets out a framework so that there can be variation between local areas. The discussion groups that we have held so far have been unanimous in their agreement that one size does not fit all. It is likely that many of the courts boards will have more than one magistrate among their membership, but we do not believe that that should be prescribed as the minimum.
	The courts boards are not intended as a replacement for proper channels of communication and consultation between magistrates and the administration of their courts. That is why we have tabled an amendment to Part 2, which guarantees that those channels will be established. Magistrate members of the courts boards are not intended as "representatives" of local Benches. A minimum of one, along with a minimum of one judge, is therefore appropriate.
	I turn to specific issues raised by the noble Baroness and others. The noble Baroness asked whether we would be kind enough to put the legal advice given to her in the Library. Yes, we will do so very willingly. I thought that that advice was already in the Library but I am delighted to confirm that if it is not there, we shall certainly ensure that it is there.
	The noble Baroness also asked me to highlight and place on the record some of the features of that letter. I am happy to do so. It is an important principle of administrative law that a public authority to which the function, power or duty has been given by Parliament, cannot delegate that power. Where functions that are entrusted to a Minister of the Crown are performed by officials who are employed in the Minister's department, including any agency that has been constituted within the purview of the department, there is generally in law no delegation because the officials and decisions are constitutionally those of the Minister. That is the Carltona doctrine. Decisions made within departments are susceptible to being challenged by way of an action of judicial review which names the relevant Minister as the defendant.
	In amendments dated 31st March 2003, Clause 1 remains in place—I refer to the noble Baroness's approach. The Lord Chancellor has the statutory function and duty of running the courts. The new clause that was proposed but which has now been abandoned provided that he must establish a courts agency that would be responsible for the administration of all the courts. Those two provisions are mutually incompatible. Statute cannot give the same function to two separate bodies. Parliament does not know whether to hold the Lord Chancellor or the courts agency to account. An aggrieved person seeking judicial review does not know whether to challenge the Lord Chancellor or the courts agency for acting unlawfully in the course of the responsibility for running the courts. We have set that out more fully, but that is probably the kernel of what is in the letter.
	The noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, also raised the issue relating to guidance. The guidance would not amend primary legislation. It can only specify supplementary functions, which supplement the five subsection (1) functions. The amendment provides that the guidance will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. We hear what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said about that. The Government are absolutely committed to getting the phrasing of that correct. I am more than willing to look at the way in which it is currently phrased to ensure that the concern that the noble and learned Lord raised is addressed. We say that, although this is a new and unprecedented departure, it is merited in this regard for the reasons that I gave on the previous occasion. In view of the length of time for which I have now been speaking, noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I am not going to repeat all that was said last time.
	I have already dealt with the issue in relation to the business plan raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I may have to deal with a few additional issues raised by him because the noble Lord talked of the tie-breaker and about the boards of directors. Perhaps I may respectfully say that the board and the local chief executive system are very different. Making clear how decisions will be taken and where the buck will stop—to put it colloquially—concerns accountability to Parliament, as I have just sought to indicate.
	I also want to lay to rest the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in relation to senior court managers and who will get the post of chief officer. We have a cadre of very good people working within the service. I would go so far as to say that there are extremely good staff in the Court Service and in magistrates' courts. I am sure that they will have an excellent chance of putting themselves forward for such appointments. I do not believe that the noble Lord need be concerned that the talent will not be there from which to make a good choice.
	The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, also raised the issue about fewer and fewer areas. I was not clear whether that was about the courts boards areas or the local justices areas. If it is the first, I do not know whether he is saying that we should not necessarily follow any changes in the police areas. I have tried to explain that we believe that there are other factors that need to be taken into account and that we would seek to reflect them.
	I have already dealt with the issue of coterminosity, but if the noble Baroness feels that further assistance on that point is necessary at this stage I shall be happy to say more. Unless she indicates that that is necessary I shall move on.
	The magistrates' views were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Effectiveness and efficiency of the courts and the way in which they work are matters of real importance to those who appear before them. To have access to justice assured and delivered in a way that creates equality across the country is a matter of great importance. We believe that what we have done assures that.
	I was disappointed that the noble Lord felt that magistrates were throwing in their hands. We have done a great deal to ensure that their proper concerns were addressed. As I have said on a number of occasions before, particularly in Committee, the basis upon which those on all Benches have taken this matter forward has been very similar. We wish to achieve the same end. We have been struggling with the best way to achieve that. We have been able to do a huge amount of good work together to ensure that that has been achieved.
	I believe that I have now dealt with all the issues that have been raised, including those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. If I have not addressed some issues I shall be more than happy to deal with them.

Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will clarify a matter in relation to Amendment No. 24, a government amendment that deals with the constitution and procedure of courts boards. In relation to the composition, paragraph 2 makes it clear that one member should be a judge, one a lay justice and then we find that two members should have,
	"appropriate knowledge or experience of the work of the courts",
	and two more members should be,
	"representative of people living in that area".
	I find sub-paragraph (c) puzzling. Are those with,
	"appropriate knowledge or experience of the work of the courts",
	the officials of the courts or the local police? Whom have the Government in mind?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, for the membership of the courts boards we intend to have as wide a representation of the local area as possible. We have not prescribed that they could not be someone in the employ of the authority, but the intention is that they would be independent people who would be able to give an additional flavour. Guidance will be given. I shall certainly see what further clarification I can give on that issue. The whole idea of making them inclusive is to include those who may be involved in the area but who may not be directly involved in the courts, so that a different dimension is brought in.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. It may have taken just over an hour but I believe that it is an hour that has been valuably used. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for the care and attention that she has paid to the amendments to government amendments and generally to the arguments put by noble Lords. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Renton for his late intervention and for eliciting further explanation about membership of courts boards. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she will consider this matter and perhaps send more information to noble Lords. Further clarification for Third Reading may benefit all.
	I am also grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern for raising his concerns on Clause 5. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she will look at that again. I shall consult with my noble and learned friend as to what he may wish to do by way of clarification at Third Reading.
	It would not be right for me to draw any conclusions on behalf of the noble Lords, Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Goodhart, both of whom are well able, as experienced lawyers and advocates, to put their own case. Suffice it to say that I agree 100 per cent with every one of the arguments that they adduced.
	On Amendment No. 19, the Minister did her best to shoot my fox. At the moment I see it as wounded, but I am on the side of the fox and I shall take it to the vets between now and Third Reading. I believe that it is vital to consider the size of courts boards because only within that will we guarantee the local delivery of justice. As I have made it clear that I shall take further action for clarification and I shall possibly press the matter at Third Reading, I shall not go into detail now. I take note of all the arguments put by the noble Baroness, but I undertake, twixt now and 19th May when, currently, we are told that Third Reading will take place, to consult both the Magistrates' Association and the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 2.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
	Clause 2 [Courts officers, staff and services]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 2, line 9, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
	"(2) The civil service pension arrangements for the time being in force apply (with any necessary adaptations) to persons appointed under subsection (1) as they apply to other persons employed in the civil service of the State.
	(3) "The civil service pension arrangements" means—
	(a) the principal civil service pension scheme (within the meaning of section 2 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (c. 11)), and
	(b) any other superannuation benefits for which provision is made under or by virtue of section 1 of the 1972 Act for or in respect of persons in employment in the civil service of the State."

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this amendment is in a separate group. We have reviewed the provisions in Clause 2 and bring forward this amendment to clarify the Civil Service pension arrangements on the face of the Bill. This matter was raised at an earlier stage. The effect of the amendment is to clarify that those eligible employees who transfer to the new agency from magistrates' courts committees or local authorities and become civil servants will be eligible for membership of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS) and any "other superannuation benefits", which includes the partnership pension account. The current draft of the Bill makes reference only to the PCSPS. However, since October 2002, some employees—those excluded from, or who have opted out of that scheme, have been offered participation in a partnership pension account. Although in Committee we clarified that eligible staff will become civil servants and of course will be eligible for membership of the scheme, we thought that it was preferable to state the Civil Service pension arrangements on the face of the Bill. I hope that clarification puts minds at rest. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 5, I must inform your Lordships that, if it is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 6 for reasons of pre-emption.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 2, line 14, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
	"(4) Subject to subsections (5) and (6), the Lord Chancellor may enter into such contracts with other persons for the provision, by them or their sub-contractors, of officers, staff or services as appear to him appropriate for the purpose of discharging his general duty in relation to the courts.
	(5) The Lord Chancellor may not enter into contracts for the provision of officers and staff to discharge functions which involve making judicial decisions or exercising any judicial discretion.
	(6) The Lord Chancellor may not enter into contracts for the provision of officers and staff to carry out the administrative work of the courts unless an order made by the Lord Chancellor authorises him to do so.
	(7) Before making an order under subsection (6) the Lord Chancellor must consult—
	(a) the Lord Chief Justice,
	(b) the Master of the Rolls,
	(c) the President of the Family Division, and
	(d) the Vice-Chancellor,
	as to what effect (if any) the order might have on the proper and efficient administration of justice.
	(8) An order under subsection (6) may authorise the Lord Chancellor to enter into contracts for the provision of officers or staff to discharge functions—
	(a) wholly or to the extent specified in the order,
	(b) generally or in cases or areas specified in the order, and
	(c) unconditionally or subject to the fulfilment of conditions specified in the order."

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this amendment relates to issues raised about Clause 2(4) in this House and by the unions. In Committee, we gave an undertaking to reconsider and discuss the matter further with the unions. We have done so. I hope that the unions are content but also the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Thomas of Gresford, who have tabled amendments today.
	The effect of Amendment No. 5 is to recreate the current requirement in Section 27 of the Courts Act 1971 to provide that contracting out under Clause 2 in respect of staff carrying out the administrative work of the courts should be after the making of an enabling order and—importantly—subject to prior consultation with the senior judiciary.
	In Committee, noble Lords raised concerns about Clause 2(4), particularly with regard to the fact that we had not included a requirement for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to obtain an order and to consult the four senior judges before contracting out administrative functions. We have therefore decided to bring forward an amendment that will require contracting out in respect of administrative staff functions to be in accordance with an enabling order and, again, subject to prior consultation with members of the senior judiciary.
	I want to put it on the record that we are most grateful to your Lordships' House and to the unions for drawing this matter to our attention. I hope that this amendment satisfies and addresses the concerns raised. Amendments to Clauses 22, 32, 46 and 56 are consequential to the amendment to Clause 2. So I trust that noble Lords will not wish to press their amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, Amendment No. 6 in this group stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. It is virtually identical to part of the new amendment introduced by the Government. Therefore, I obviously welcome what the Government have done and I shall not be moving my amendment. I also understand from correspondence that the unions involved in this are content with the new arrangements that have been made. So I am happy to support all the amendments in the group.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I welcome the government amendments. As a result of seeing those, I withdrew my amendment to Schedule 1, which went rather broader than the government amendments. However, it was intended only as a device to try to stimulate debate. The Government not only have the debate but the amendment. I support them.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
	Clause 4 [Establishment of court administration councils]:
	[Amendments Nos. 7 to 17 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 18:
	Leave out Clause 4 and insert the following new Clause—
	"ESTABLISHMENT OF COURTS BOARDS
	(1) England and Wales is to be divided into areas for each of which there is to be a courts board.
	(2) The areas are to be those specified by an order made by the Lord Chancellor.
	(3) Each area established by an order under subsection (2) is to be known by such name as is specified in the order (but subject to subsection (4)).
	(4) The Lord Chancellor may make orders altering the areas.
	(5) "Altering", in relation to an area, includes (as well as changing its boundaries)—
	(a) combining it with one or more other areas,
	(b) dividing it between two or more other areas, and
	(c) changing its name.
	(6) Before making an order under subsection (4), the Lord Chancellor must consult any courts board affected by the proposed order.
	(7) Schedule (Constitution and procedure of courts boards) contains provisions about the constitution and procedure of courts boards."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 19, as an amendment to Amendment No. 18, not moved.]
	Clause 5 [Role of court administration councils]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 20:
	Leave out Clause 5 and insert the following new Clause—
	"FUNCTIONS OF COURTS BOARDS
	(1) Each courts board is under a duty, in accordance with guidance under this section—
	(a) to scrutinise, review and make recommendations about the way in which the Lord Chancellor is discharging his general duty in relation to the courts with which the board is concerned, and
	(b) for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a), to consider draft and final business plans relating to those courts.
	(2) In discharging his general duty in relation to the courts, the Lord Chancellor must give due consideration to recommendations provided by the boards under subsection (1).
	(3) The courts with which a courts board is concerned are—
	(a) the Crown Court,
	(b) county courts, and
	(c) magistrates' courts,
	in the board's area.
	(4) The Lord Chancellor must prepare and issue the boards with guidance about how they should carry out their functions under subsection (1).
	(5) The guidance may in particular contain provisions—
	(a) about the procedures to be followed in connection with draft and final business plans;
	(b) conferring on the boards functions supplementing their functions under subsection (1).
	(6) The Lord Chancellor may from time to time issue the boards with revised guidance and revoke previous guidance.
	(7) Guidance issued under this section must be laid before both Houses of Parliament."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 21, as an amendment to Amendment No. 20, not moved.]

Lord Goodhart: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 20, Amendment No. 22:
	Line 12, at end insert—
	"(2A) If the Lord Chancellor rejects a recommendation made by a courts board about a final business plan under subsection (1) he shall give to the board written reasons for so doing."

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this is an important amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, gave reasons for rejecting it. I was not convinced by them. There would not be any practical difficulty in deciding which the relevant recommendations were because I believe that it will be obvious. The final business plan will be put forward as a final draft and submitted to the Lord Chancellor for approval. In those circumstances, I shall not repeat what I said earlier, but I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 98; Not-Contents, 83.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment No. 22, as an amendment to Amendment No. 20, agreed to accordingly.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 23:
	After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
	"DUTIES OF A JUSTICE
	( ) The Lord Chancellor shall consult the magistrates for local justice areas on any matters relating to the duties of a justice.
	( ) Rules may make provision for the purposes of this section."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 23. It was tabled after consultation with the Magistrates' Association. Its objective is to provide a method by which there is guaranteed consultation of magistrates by the Lord Chancellor on any matters relating to the duties of a justice. I very much welcome the Government's amendment. I know that they took care over the past two or three weeks to reach a form of drafting that would be more suitable than mine.
	I hope that noble Lords will excuse me if I point out briefly that the reasons for the Magistrates' Association wanting to include the provision on the face of the Bill was that it felt that Benches need to be consulted and informed about how the courts are organised. It is a matter of general good working relationships between the new courts agency and all levels of the judiciary, paid and unpaid, in a particular area. It pointed out that it is not enough for local administrators and court staff to be the only ones in the loop. It believes that, once that is recognised, the unified administration must work with magistrates to enable them to work efficiently at local level.
	I am grateful to the Government for tabling their amendment. I thought that it was not appropriate at such a late stage to withdraw mine, as it would not have been possible to produce reprints of the Marshalled List. Although I beg to move, I look forward to withdrawing the amendment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Seccombe, for their amendment, whose aim I entirely support and agree with. The partnership between judges, magistrates and the agency is fundamental to the work of the courts; therefore, good communication at all levels is essential. However, the noble Baronesses' amendment places an unqualified obligation on the Lord Chancellor to consult magistrates. Such a broad remit would have left the noble and learned Lord open to judicial review for, for example, not consulting every individual magistrate. Our amendment offers magistrates a guarantee that they will be kept informed of matters affecting them, and they will be given the opportunity to give their views.
	I am particularly grateful to the Magistrates' Association for its constructive discussion of the matter and its support for the amendment. In due course, I shall beg to move Amendment No. 50.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 24:
	Before Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—

"CONSTITUTION AND PROCEDURE OF COURTS BOARDS

Constitution

1 The members of each courts board are to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
	2 Each board must have—
	(a) at least one member who is a judge,
	(b) at least one member who is a lay justice who is assigned to a local justice area the whole or a part of which is included in the board's area,
	(c) at least two other members who are persons appearing to the Lord Chancellor to have appropriate knowledge or experience of the work of the courts in the area for which the board acts, and
	(d) at least two more members who are persons appearing to the Lord Chancellor to be representative of people living in that area,
	and may have such other members of a description mentioned in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate.
	3 Regulations may make provision in relation to the appointment of members of courts boards, including in particular provision about the procedures to be followed in connection with appointments.

Chairman

4 Regulations may make provision as to the selection of one of the members of each courts board to be its chairman.

Tenure of office

5 (1) Regulations may make provision as to—
	(a) the term of office of chairmen and members of courts boards;
	(b) their resignation, suspension or removal.
	(2) Subject to the regulations, a person is to hold and vacate office as a member of a courts board in accordance with the terms of the instrument appointing him.

Payments in respect of expenses, etc.

6 The Lord Chancellor may make such payments to or in respect of members of courts boards by way of reimbursement of expenses, allowances and remuneration as he may determine.

Procedure

7 Regulations may make provision about—
	(a) the procedure of courts boards (including quorum);
	(b) the validation of proceedings in the event of a vacancy among the members of a courts board or a defect in the appointment of a member.

Interpretation

8 In this Schedule "regulations" means regulations made by the Lord Chancellor."

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 24, Amendment No. 25:
	Line 8, leave out "one member who is a lay justice who is" and insert "two members who are lay justices who are"

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, we discussed this matter at some length in Committee and earlier this morning. I am not persuaded by the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, for not agreeing that two members of the board should be magistrates. They will be overwhelmingly the main carriers of business as between Crown Courts, county courts and magistrates' courts. The magistrates' courts will, I imagine, carry 80 to 90 per cent of the business. Accordingly, I will test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether Amendment No. 25, as an amendment to Amendment No. 24, shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 85.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment No. 25, as an amendment to Amendment No. 24, agreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Amendment No. 24, as amended, agreed to.
	Schedule 1 [Abolition of magistrates' courts committees: transfers]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 26:
	Page 54, line 11, after "with," insert "or are otherwise attributable to"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 are put forward to add greater clarity and certainty to paragraph 1 of Schedule 1, relating to the transfer of property. We have reviewed the provisions in Schedule 1 and put forward Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 to ensure that all the various categories of property, which should by virtue of paragraph 1(1) be transferred to the Lord Chancellor or another Minister of the Crown, may be included in a property transfer scheme.
	Paragraph 8A of Amendment No. 29 is, in substance, the same as existing paragraph 13 but, again, it is a clarifying provision. Similarly, Amendment No. 30 is tabled to improve the drafting and clarity of that provision. Amendment No. 31 is consequential to the other amendments made to this schedule. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 27 to 31:
	Page 54, line 23, at end insert—
	"( ) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (b) of sub-paragraph (1), any property, rights or liabilities are to be treated as falling within that paragraph if the Lord Chancellor issues a certificate to that effect." Page 54, line 26, at beginning insert "In this Part of this Schedule"
	Page 56, line 13, leave out from beginning to end of line 44 on page 57 and insert—

"Supplementary provisions in property transfer scheme

8A A property transfer scheme may make such supplemental, consequential or transitional provision for the purposes of, or in connection with, a transfer made by the scheme as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate.

PART 2 STAFF TRANSFERS

Interpretation

8B In this Part of this Schedule—
	(a) "TUPE" means the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (S.I. 1981/1794),
	(b) "the appointed day" means the day immediately before the abolition day,
	(c) references to a responsible authority are to an authority which is a responsible authority under the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (c. 25),
	(d) references to a responsible authority's relevant functions are to its functions under that Act, and
	(e) references to a transferred employee are to an employee transferred to the Lord Chancellor's employment by virtue of paragraph 8C or 8D.

Application of TUPE

8C For the purposes of TUPE—
	(a) the functions of each magistrates' courts committee are to be treated as transferred on the appointed day from the committee to the Lord Chancellor, and
	(b) each such transfer is to be treated as the transfer of an undertaking.
	8D (1) For the purposes of TUPE—
	(a) the relevant functions of each responsible authority are to be treated as transferred on the appointed day from the authority to the Lord Chancellor,
	(b) each such transfer is to be treated as the transfer of an undertaking, and
	(c) each person falling within sub-paragraph (2) (but no other person) is to be treated as employed in the undertaking immediately before the appointed day.
	(2) A person falls within this sub-paragraph if—
	(a) immediately before the appointed day he is employed by the responsible authority under a contract of employment,
	(b) he spends a substantial part of his time on duties connected with the relevant functions of the authority, and
	(c) the Lord Chancellor certifies that in his opinion it is expedient that the person be transferred to the Lord Chancellor's employment.
	(3) Where TUPE applies by virtue of this paragraph, it applies as if regulation 5(4B) were omitted.
	8E A reference in any enactment to a person appointed under section 2(1) includes a transferred employee.

Restrictions on employment of aliens not to apply to transferred employees

8F Nothing in—
	(a) section 3 of the Act of Settlement 1700 (c. 2),
	(b) section 6 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919 (c. 92), or
	(c) any rules prescribing requirements as to nationality which must be satisfied in the case of persons employed in a civil capacity under the Crown,
	applies to the employment of a transferred employee by the Lord Chancellor following his transfer by virtue of paragraph 8C or 8D.

Compensation for responsible authorities

8G The Lord Chancellor may, to the extent he thinks fit, compensate a responsible authority in respect of costs incurred by the authority as a result of this Act in respect of a person who—
	(a) immediately before the appointed day is employed by the authority under a contract of employment, and
	(b) spends part of his time on duties connected with the relevant functions of the authority,
	but who is not transferred to the Lord Chancellor's employment by virtue of paragraph 8D.

PART 3 MISCELLANEOUS AND SUPPLEMENTARY".

Page 58, line 19, leave out "person falling within paragraph 1(1)(a) or (2)" and insert "magistrates' courts committee, and each person falling within paragraph 1(2)"
	Page 58, line 21, leave out from "with" to end of line 27 and insert "—
	(a) the exercise of any powers exercisable by him in relation to a property transfer scheme, or
	(b) Part 2 of this Schedule."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 8 [Local justice areas]:
	[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
	Clause 10 [Appointment of lay justices etc.]:

Baroness Seccombe: moved Amendment No. 33:
	Page 5, line 7, at end insert—
	"(1A) The Lord Chancellor shall appoint such a number of lay justices as appears to him to be appropriate for the purposes of discharging the work of the magistrates' courts.
	(1B) To assist him in discharging his duties under subsections (1) and (1A), the Lord Chancellor shall publish within six months of Royal Assent a national recruitment strategy for the recruitment of lay justices."

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, many of your Lordships will remember Amendment No. 33 from Committee stage when it provoked much debate. It goes to the heart of our argument in what we are seeking; that is, to ensure that the Lord Chancellor will appoint sufficient lay justices to ensure that local justice is preserved.
	I am grateful to the Minister for her helpful reply to this amendment in Committee, but I believe it necessary to consider it once more in order to clear up one or two points which are, as yet, outstanding. In particular, we are keen to establish exactly when the strategy for recruitment will be published. We have been assured that the strategy will be published early this year—certainly within the six-month period that we proposed. If this is so, would it be possible to have this assurance on the face of the Bill?
	My thoughts on the lay magistracy are well known and I am keen to ensure that there is a clear commitment to the continuation of their appointment and work within the court system. I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I rise briefly to support these sensible and constructive amendments.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the first of these amendments to Clause 10 would require the Lord Chancellor to have a duty to appoint as many lay justices as necessary for the magistrates' courts effectively to carry out the work. As I said in Committee to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, we believe that such a provision in statute is unnecessary and indeed inappropriate. The effective running of the courts requires an appropriate number of magistrates. It is therefore implicit that the Lord Chancellor is under a duty to try to appoint sufficient justices for this purpose.
	Furthermore, the duty to appoint magistrates implies taking the best measures one reasonably can in the prevailing circumstances to appoint the right numbers and the right calibre of justices. There is a balance to be struck between these two necessary aims. Putting in statute a provision that suggests that the Lord Chancellor appoint as many justices as necessary to run the courts would inappropriately emphasise numbers over calibre. If a court were to hold that the Lord Chancellor had not complied with his duty to appoint enough magistrates and ordered him to do so, would it be satisfactory if this could be done only by appointing unsuitable people? I know that that is not what the noble Baroness would want.
	The second part of the amendment sets out that the Lord Chancellor should produce a national recruitment strategy for lay justices within six months of the Courts Bill having received Royal Assent. In Committee, I said that we are committed to a national recruitment strategy for lay justices. However, this level of detail on a one-off piece of administrative work, and its timing, is not appropriate for primary legislation. If all departments were to sign up to their administrative programmes in this fashion, the legislative machinery probably would be overwhelmed.
	I said in Committee that we were hopeful of publishing the strategy this year—that is, within six months of the Royal Assent time period. Of course I note the concern of the noble Baroness on this issue. I think that I am confident enough to restate the hope as an undertaking. I hope that that is helpful. On that basis, I trust that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for his support. The point of bringing this amendment before the House was to ensure that we retain the present balance of district judges and lay magistracy and that we do not drift into different proportions. I accept the assurance and the undertaking that the Minister has given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 34:
	Page 5, line 14, at end insert—
	"(4) Rules may make provision about the training courses to be completed before a person may exercise functions as a lay justice in any proceedings or class of proceedings specified in the rules.
	(5) Subsection (3) is subject to section (The supplemental list) (entry of names in the supplemental list)."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we debated the need for these amendments in Committee. I sketched our provisional thoughts on what our amendments on this theme might look like and, indeed, we have followed fairly closely what we contemplated. It may be helpful if I recap the thinking behind these amendments.
	I shall deal first with the proposed new clause after Clause 15. This clause gives statutory underpinning to the important roles played by the bench training and development committees (BTDCs) in the training, appraisal and development of magistrates. These roles include—as I said in Committee and as many noble Lords will be aware—managing the bench appraisal and mentor scheme; identifying training needs; referring those magistrates deemed not to have demonstrated the required level of competence to advisory committees; and responsibilities in relation to magistrates qualified to preside in court. Apart from the last role, these currently have no statutory backing. That is not an entirely satisfactory situation given the great importance of these issues.
	The amendment to Clause 10 clarifies that the Lord Chancellor has a general power to prescribe training requirements in respect of all magistrates' jurisdictions. I say "clarifies" because it is arguable that, as head of the judiciary or as the responsible Minister, the noble and learned Lord has such residual powers now. Furthermore, as noble Lords may know, magistrates' undertakings, which they sign on appointment, include undertakings to undergo appropriate training. So magistrates understand that this is a condition of their holding office. But we believe, especially under a unified administration, where in the future training will be more consistent across the country and overseen by the Judicial Studies Board, that it is necessary to clarify this power. There are rule-making powers in the Bill that enable the Lord Chancellor to require magistrates to undergo training in respect of specialist functions, such as chairing in court, youth work and family work. It is consistent that this cannot be done for all jurisdictions.
	It will not have escaped the notice of noble Lords that subsection (3) sets out a statutory obligation on the Lord Chancellor to provide training and training materials for magistrates where he requires them to undergo training. So magistrates will have a new statutory assurance in this regard.
	I explained in Committee that we hoped in our amendment to cover more ground than the amendment tabled by the noble Baronesses, and I assume that I do not need to go into the detail of that amendment again. In its treatment of bench training and development committees, the amendment does not cover many of the roles of those committees. The role it suggests is one in fact carried out by the Judicial Studies Board. Additionally, we would not want to lose the scope to confer new functions on the BTDCs in the future. We believe that our amendment is broader than that suggested and that it makes a more comprehensive provision for the training and development of lay magistrates.
	I hope, therefore, that the amendment of the noble Baronesses will be withdrawn in favour of the amendment I have proposed on the Lord Chancellor's behalf. I hope, too, that it meets all their requirements. I beg to move.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, in supporting the government amendments, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 46 tabled in my name. I raised this matter in Committee and the amendment has been tabled as a result of consultation with the Magistrates' Association.
	It is essential that a clear commitment is set out on the face of the Bill to provide adequate training for lay magistrates, along with an ongoing commitment to ensure that the highest possible standards are upheld. In Committee the Minister accepted the thrust of our amendment, and I am pleased that the Government have tabled an amendment which fulfils the criteria we had proposed. As a consequence, I shall not move Amendment No. 46 when we come to it on the Marshalled List.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Waddington: moved Amendment No. 35:
	Page 5, line 14, at end insert—
	"( ) This section shall have effect subject to section (Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Lancashire)."

Lord Waddington: My Lords, as it stands, the Bill takes from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster his current responsibilities for the appointment of magistrates within the duchy and gives those responsibilities to the Lord Chancellor. Although they look complicated, the amendments have the effect simply of leaving things as they are at present.
	I have registered my concern about this matter on a number of occasions, and I thank the noble Baroness for her patience both on the Floor of the House and in letters to me. She could not have been more courteous and punctilious.
	I am not suggesting that this is one of the most important issues in the Bill; of course it is not. However, in expressing my concern, I know that I am reflecting the views of many people in Lancashire who attach a great deal of importance to the work of the duchy and the office of Chancellor. They feel as I do; namely, that the Government's determination to go ahead with the proposal to take away from the Chancellor an important power is an example of the Administration's obsession with modernisation for modernisation's sake and of its love of change for the sake of uniformity rather than when it is necessary to achieve economy or efficiency. It also shows a rather sad contempt for history and tradition.
	No one would suggest that successive Chancellors of the Duchy have not carried out their duties efficiently and in conformity with the highest standards. I know that my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, who has added his name to the amendment, was most assiduous and conscientious in the carrying out of his duchy duties. Furthermore, no one has alleged that any Chancellor of the Duchy, at least during my time in Parliament, has allowed different criteria to be applied in the making of appointments to the Bench in the duchy area from those applied in the making of appointments elsewhere in the country. Therefore, no one could suggest that what is being proposed by the Lord Chancellor will lead to consistency where consistency is now lacking. So, in view of the acceptance of the need for consistency, the fact that the Lord Chancellor is to launch a national recruitment strategy for lay magistrates—an argument raised by the noble Baroness—seems neither here nor there. In short, I know of no mischief which needs to be addressed or which would be removed by the change. Furthermore, I certainly know of no public call for such a change.
	I am sure that the Minister knows that the proposal has caused great annoyance where I come from, not least because it follows a similar proposal put out to consultation in 2000 and withdrawn when the consultation exercise showed minimal support for change. The likes of myself, along with many others in public life in the North West, were consulted in that year but were not written to a second time before the publication of the Bill to be told that there would be no second consultation exercise. In a letter from the Minister dated 14th February, I am told that what happened was that,
	"a transfer of responsibility was cleared with the Chancellor of the Duchy".
	Such a clearing between two departments does not begin to justify a change any more than would any other say-so of government.
	However, the Minister did point out in her letter to me that, after publication of the Auld report, the Government sought comments on Sir Robin's recommendations, and that over 80 per cent of those who responded supported his view of the matter. But when one looks to see what was Sir Robin's view, one does not find any comfort for the Government whatever. He certainly does not support the line taken by the Lord Chancellor in the Bill. Some noble Lords may have failed to appreciate that. This is not a case of the consultation exercise undertaken in 2000 taking place but then, as it were, being rendered obsolete by the Auld report. Quite the contrary.
	One has to start by looking at paragraph 62 in chapter 4 of the report where Sir Robin emphasises that the local advisory committees in the duchy area are constituted in precisely the same way as advisory committees in the rest of the country, and that their manner of working is the same. In paragraph 63 he goes on:
	"This anomaly of a 'fourth' criminal justice Minister, with no formal role in the system, other than to appoint magistrates for this relatively small part of the country, is one of the interesting relics of the acquisition by Henry IV in 1399 of the estates and jurisdiction of the Duchy of Lancaster. Consideration has recently been given to removing it. That would no doubt be tidy. But local traditions matter and if, as appears to be the case, this one creates no harmful inconsistencies as between the Duchy and the country as a whole, I can see no reason for changing it so long as the magistrates' courts remain separate from the Crown Court".
	He concludes by saying,
	"But, if, as I recommend in Chapter 7, they become part of a unified Criminal Court, there would be little justification of practical sense in preserving the anomaly".
	We know that Sir Robin's recommendation in Chapter 7 was not accepted by the Government; that the magistrates' courts will remain separate from the Crown Court and will not become part of a unified criminal court. So in no way can the Government suggest that the Auld report is a reason for rejecting these amendments. Quite the contrary. In no way will a unified courts administration make impossible, or even inconvenient, the power of appointment of magistrates in the Duchy remaining with the Chancellor of the Duchy.
	We should keep old traditions when they cause no harm and in no way militate against the public interest. There is no point in scrapping arrangements which have stood the test of time—which are part of the rich tapestry of our history and which have formed a part of our system of justice since the 14th century—if they work perfectly well. That is why I have tabled these amendments today. I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend, who has spoken so eloquently and convincingly on this issue. He is right to put the Auld report in context. I respectfully point out to the Minister that she did not quote all the relevant sections of the Auld report in the letter that she wrote to my noble friend on 14th February and which she copied to me. Now that my noble friend has read in full the relevant sections he has put the matter more fully into context. He has done the House a service in reminding us of the words in the Auld report.
	As I understand it, it is to be a decision for the Prime Minister. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could indicate the extent of the discussions that have been held with the Prime Minister. On several occasions I have heard him refer to the "importance of history". I even recollect a phrase he used—which he asserted was not a cliché—when he said that he could feel the hand of history on his shoulder. The hand of history is now on the shoulder of the noble Baroness. As my noble friend pointed out, this subject has a long history. Chancellors of the Duchy have made these appointments since the 14th century.
	There have been two major occasions since the 14th century on which close scrutiny and consultations were carried out. One was in 1948, when a Royal Commission was appointed formally to examine what was described at that time—no doubt by a Minister equally inspired by the Treasury to move for uniformity—as an "anomaly". That Royal Commission concluded that the existing system should continue as opinion in Lancashire favoured doing so and it seemed that little damage would be caused as a result.
	There was then a consultation in 2000, only three years ago. As I have pointed out to the Minister on more than one occasion, the list of those consulted was enormous. It included all Members of Parliament; a range of political parties; a range of representatives of local government; a range of legal representatives; and all former Chancellors of the Duchy. We spent some time and effort in responding to the consultation initiated by Marjorie Mowlam, who concluded—as had the Royal Commission—that the weight of opinion was strongly in favour of continuing this practice by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
	The noble Baroness said that the majority of respondents supported the retention of the Chancellor's role and added the words "at that time". With my noble friend I have sought to re-examine the issue with a number of people who were consulted at that time. All of those to whom I have spoken told me that they had not been consulted again and that they had not changed their mind. Although the Minister may say that the respondents "at that time" supported the Chancellor of the Duchy, I am not aware of anyone who has changed their mind since the last consultation.
	My noble friend has done the House a great service in raising this issue again. I very strongly support him.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for speaking to the amendment with such charm and eloquence. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I do indeed feel the hand of history pressing heavy on my shoulder.
	I very much regret that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, believes that the Government have a sad contempt for history. I sincerely wish to disabuse him of that view because we have a high and proper regard for the value and importance of the lessons of history. That can be seen through a proper scrutiny of what the Government have done.
	In what I say next I cast no aspersion whatever on the previous incumbents of the Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster or on the present incumbent, who is greatly esteemed by us all. He follows a long tradition of high quality Ministers.
	I say straightaway that I cannot accept the amendment and will resist it. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is right. There will not be a unified criminal court. But there will be a unified administration of the courts—a significant distinction which Sir Robin Auld commended. In order to deliver on a unified court administration it will be important, as we have established, that the procedures for appointing magistrates are common across the country.
	The noble Lords have proposed amendments that seek to reinstate the responsibilities of the Duchy of Lancaster in regard to the appointment and removal of magistrates in the Duchy area. In Committee, we had a short exchange on an earlier amendment and, as the noble Lord said, we have had, through correspondence, many exchanges in relation to this amendment. As I said then, I hope that we have demonstrated our regard for the magistracy and that we have been sympathetic to its concerns.
	I know that noble Lords are concerned that the transfer of the Duchy's responsibility is unwelcome to some magistrates in the region. At Second Reading, several noble Lords spoke out in similar terms in regard to the supplemental list. We made no bones about accepting the list's reinstatement. But the current split between the Duchy and the Lord Chancellor is more difficult to retain.
	As outlined in Committee on 4th February, the Lord Chancellor is committed to a national recruitment strategy for lay magistrates, an issue we have discussed today. This is a vitally important step which is intended to raise the profile of the lay magistracy and to ensure that magistrates represent the communities they serve. It will apply across the jurisdiction. Providing the Lord Chancellor with responsibility for the appointment of all magistrates in England and Wales complements that strategy and should be seen as part of the Auld package of reforms.
	The current split of responsibility is anomalous even under the current system. It does not apply to professional judges. It does not apply to other ancient Duchies. It is claimed that the Duchy magistrates are treated differently—or rather, I should ask whether that is the claim, because I do not believe that it ever has been the case that the Duchy magistrates are treated differently from the way in which magistrates are treated in other areas. Indeed, I do not believe it to be so, or that that makes the split indefensible. I do not know whether it is suggested that they are treated similarly. If so, the Bill should not prejudice them.
	Transferring the Duchy's responsibilities does not realistically affect the local connection. Both the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster appoint magistrates on behalf of her Majesty the Queen. Offices currently based in London are processing the recommendations of advisory committees. In both cases, advisory committees are the most meaningful links to local communities. There is no suggestion that the role and responsibilities of advisory committees would undergo change as a result of the delegated appointing authority moving from one ministry to another. The local connection would be fully preserved.
	In any event, however arguable the split may be currently, under the other changes made by this Bill, it will not make sense at all. There will be a nation-wide unified administration. There is to be a single commission area; magistrates will have a national jurisdiction—as do professional judges. I ask rhetorically: how can it be right that two Ministers should appoint or remove magistrates, according, presumably, to the area to which they are first assigned on appointment but they retain national jurisdiction?
	I turn to consultation—an issue upon which I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and one that has been raised again this morning. As I said in my letter, the noble Lord is right to say that there was a consultation exercise on the transfer of these responsibilities in 2000. Although a number of respondents saw the case for change, the majority of respondents at that time supported the retention of the role of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. So the matter was not pursued at that stage.
	The possibility of transferring responsibility was then raised again by Sir Robin Auld in his authoritative review of the criminal justice system. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, read out the recommendation made by Sir Robin, two parts of which I should like to emphasise. First, he specifically said:
	"In the event of the establishment of a unified criminal court the present division of responsibility . . . between the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Duchy of Lancaster should be reviewed".
	At that time he envisaged that, in the creation of a joint unified criminal court, there would be a joint administration to manage the court. He then went on to say that,
	"there would be little justification or practical sense in preserving the anomaly",
	if that unification took place.
	With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I do not believe that one can separate the two and say, "You didn't have a unified criminal court, so that idea goes out of the window". The nature of the unification was to enable the courts' administration to act together, one would have a greater flow from one court to another, and there would be a degree of synergy. That is what we are trying to create with a unified administration.
	The Government sought comments on Sir Robin's report. The responses that I have seen do not suggest to me a unified rejection of this proposal even from within the Duchy area. In fact, of the several specific responses on the point, Duchy and non-Duchy, the substantial majority support a review of the split. There are several further responses, which, without mentioning the Duchy, express general support for Recommendation 8. The latter include the Duchy's Advisory Committee for the Metropolitan Petty Sessions Area of Trafford.
	I can provide details in that respect, if required. The Merseyside Magistrates' Association said that it wished to support the status quo, for reasons of local tradition. But one Duchy Bench—North Sefton—supported a review of the current split. The Greater Manchester Magistrates' Court Committee also responded and supported a review of the split. I have not found other local MCCs or advisory committees expressing a view in favour of the split. Therefore, on a less local note, the Association of Justices' Chief Executives thought that the Auld review provides an opportunity for consolidating these responsibilities under the Lord Chancellor.
	Although the Government have stopped short of establishing a unified criminal court, they have decided to unify the management of the courts and provide much closer alignment between the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court, and to provide a national jurisdiction for magistrates. The transfer from the Duchy of Lancaster to the Lord Chancellor is fully consistent with those changes.
	I know that this is an emotive rather than a strictly practical issue. However, I hope that I have explained why we do not believe that the amendment can reasonably be accepted. I believe that there is now an outline agreement with the Duchy Office that will, or may, provide a solution to one of the issues taxing Duchy magistrates. In the event of amalgamation, the Lord Chancellor's Department has agreed to supply the Duchy Office with a list of all new appointments of lay magistrates in the County Palatine so that the Duchy Office can issue a certificate or letter to those magistrates thanking them for volunteering their services to local justice in the Duchy. That will be in addition to the letter of appointment that will be signed by the Lord Chancellor.
	In approaching the matter in a practical way, we hope that the link between the Duchy and the magistrates appointed in the Duchy area will be re-emphasised and highlighted; and, indeed, that it may go some way towards meeting the emotional concerns—I say "emotional", but there is an issue of sentiment and connection involved against which we do not wish to trespass. I hope that that practical way of dealing with the process will enable us not only to achieve the unification that will inure to the benefit of all the people in the Duchy of Lancaster but also to ensure that the link will be preserved in a way that many may feel is both complementary and pleasing. I trust that noble Lords will feel satisfied with my response.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her gracious and emollient reply. On 20th January, I disturbed the tranquillity of the proceedings by pointing out that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had, in recent years, grasped to his bosom a number of new responsibilities. Here is one that he need not have treated in that way. I am saddened by his determination to do so against the wishes of local people. But there it is; I have to accept the position.
	Perhaps the noble Baroness could suggest to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that both he and she would be showing their respect for history by considering his making of appointments in the Duchy area in the name of the Chancellor of the Duchy. That is a matter that the noble Baroness could consider before Third Reading. I do not think that anything would be gained by pressing the matter to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe this to be a convenient moment for a break in our proceedings on the Bill. I beg to move that the Report stage be adjourned until after Starred Questions.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 1.29 to 2 p.m. for Judicial Business and to 3 p.m. for Public Business.]

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, before business begins, I take this opportunity to inform the House that I will be undertaking a ministerial visit to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia from Monday 19th to Thursday 22nd May, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

University Campuses: Health Centre Practices

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as I am a patient of such a practice.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what provision will be made under the proposed new general practitioner contract to ensure continuance of general practitioner health centre practices on university campuses.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the proposed new contract for general medical services has been negotiated between the NHS Confederation and the General Practitioners Committee of the BMA. If accepted by the profession, the new contract will provide health centre practices on most campuses with the same method of funding and earning opportunities that will be available to all GMS practices.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but my concern is that a situation may arise, as it did in dentistry, whereby the BDA accepted and agreed a contract which has resulted in the total destruction of dentistry in the capital and in many other parts of the country. The Imperial College health practice, of which I am a patient, has 11,000 students and about 1,000 to 1,500 local people, young and old. It runs a model practice. I am told by the doctors there that under the new weighting of young people, which will be greatly reduced in terms of expenditure for each young person requiring health care, they will not find it viable. They claim that the same situation will exist in Bristol, Reading, Southampton, Sussex, York and possibly other areas. What can be done about this?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I can give the noble Baroness and the practice concerned solid assurances that there is no question that the practice will not be viable. The noble Baroness is quite right that the formula has been changed. It is now redistributive; it has been driven by the profession and by the NHS Confederation so that the new contract will reflect the real workload of doctors where their patients are more elderly or more sick. University practices, where there are young people, will have a different basis for calculation too, but the minimum practice income guarantee will guarantee that they will not lose out on their current earnings. That guarantee is not time-limited and it will be in place for whatever length of time is necessary. Not only will the guarantee be there and be sound but under the proposed contract, if it is accepted, new practices will be able to organise their workload more flexibly and earn additional money by bidding for additional enhanced services. In the case of universities, that might include sexual health or sports injuries.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister is implying that this is essentially a communications issue, and that the new GP contract, with its minimum guarantee payments, which is a very important contract, will guarantee existing levels of income. But it was only on 17th April that the chairman of the British Association of Health Services in Higher Education complained that its letters to the negotiators had not been effectively answered and it was concerned that student health practices will remain disadvantaged in the short and medium term, such as that the only option will be cuts in staff, including nurses and doctors. Clearly, communication has not been good enough. What does the noble Baroness say about that?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I certainly repeat my reassurances in relation to the issues that the noble Lord has raised. There was some difficulty originally with the communication from the British Medical Association because, in the press of time, incomplete information was given. But I can assure noble Lords that when it is appropriate, we will place a full set of papers in the Library to give everyone as much information as possible. In addition, the BMA website now includes a very full and clear account of the contract and what it proposes.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that these general medical practices on university campuses not only play an important part in offering medical services to university staff and students but many fulfil a vital teaching role as many medical students receive experience of general practice in such practices? Is this not something that must be preserved at all costs?

Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords, I entirely agree, and there is no threat to them.

Earl Howe: My Lords, the Minister said that the minimum practice income guarantee would be in place for as long as was necessary. Who will decide when it is no longer necessary?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the contract is radical; it puts 33 per cent more money into primary care. Because it is radical and new—it is a departure from tradition—we will be watching its progress and it will be under review from October 2004. I predict that every practice will be able to call on that review process.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I declare an interest as a doctor practising in Wales. Could the Minister explain why general practitioners in Wales do not have the same concerns as those in England? Indeed, the expansion of academic general practice in Wales is generally being encouraged. What are the Government doing to cope with the anxieties that have been expressed by general practitioners in England and how are they being dealt with?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I know that in Wales and in Scotland the professionals have welcomed the new contract. We very much hope that on 14th May, when the BMA has its own meeting, the contract will receive a similar welcome, because we believe that it will bring immense benefits. To reassure practitioners, we are encouraging the fullest possible information about the contract, and that information will be as clear as possible. The NHS Confederation website also offers a very clear explanation of the new contract. I hope that, between the BMA and the NHS Confederation—the two parts of the negotiating arrangement—general practitioners will be very well informed.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that while it is true in the general population that elderly people make bigger demands on general practice than young people, students are in a rather different position, partly because they often live in hostels where infections can spread very fast—we have several examples of that—and also because they often suffer from stress and emotional problems, which take them to their GP? Could not the Government reconsider the formula, particularly in relation to students in university hostels and campuses?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I have already said that there will be absolutely no difference in the treatment of university health centres. Indeed, the health centres will be able to contract in to do other sorts of work which will assist the students. In that context, the noble Baroness probably knows the Universities UK report which came out last November. It is extremely positive and has received positive responses from the DfES on student services as a whole. A directory of good examples of innovative practices for student support is about to be published. In addition, the National Service Framework for Mental Health puts a lot of emphasis on the mental health needs of young people.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, while welcoming the 33 per cent increase in expenditure in this field to which the noble Baroness has referred, can she say where the money is coming from and how much it is in cash terms? Is it another case of robbing Peter to pay Paul, or is it new money?

Baroness Andrews: No, my Lords, it represents £1.9 billion of new money.

Iraq: Antiquities

Lord Rea: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps are being taken to recover the antiquities looted from Iraq's museums after they came under coalition control.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we deplore the looting of Iraq's museums and have taken steps to ensure that looted items are apprehended and returned. The UK is a signatory to the 1970 UNESCO convention, and the Government are supporting a Private Members' Bill which will strengthen UK law in respect of trade in illicit antiquities. We have also secured the help of the UK art trade in identifying looted material, and are working with international bodies to establish a database for stolen items. We have alerted Customs to the need to enforce the current embargo.

Lord Rea: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Blackstone is answering the Question. In fact, we have heard only in the past day or two that a substantial cache of items has been recovered in Iraq, but very much more remains to be found.
	Are the Government taking steps, together with the United States, to strengthen the search for items within Iraq, before they are exported on to the international market? Is consideration being given to a reward system? I am aware that that would be difficult, because some items have already been returned freely, and the people who returned them would have to be considered in any compensation. An amnesty has been announced, but that might be an additional incentive.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in response to my noble friend's final question, I am not sure that consideration has been given to providing rewards for people who return looted material. However, an amnesty is in place, and that is probably the right route to take at present.
	Some good news is coming out of Iraq. Some of the goods that were stolen or looted from the museum in Baghdad appear to be in safe hands. However, the picture is still very unclear. It is not known exactly what has been taken. Donny George, the head of research in the museum in Baghdad, was in London last week. He estimates that probably around 10 per cent of the museum's collections have been stolen, looted and vandalised in some way. As there were 170,000 items in that museum, that amounts to some 17,000 items.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the repeated attempts made by my noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn to forewarn her Majesty's Government as early as February this year of the potential risks to archaeological sites and antiquities in Iraq in the aftermath of military intervention? Those attempts were entirely frustrated by the Government's failure to provide an adequate reply.
	Does the Minister agree with the Illicit Antiquities Research Centre at Cambridge University that it would make sense to establish a UNESCO-approved repository for Iraqi material, which could be kept in safe storage and returned to Iraq when the situation there has stabilised?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government welcome any attempts to provide a repository of that sort. We are working closely with international organisations, such as UNESCO, Interpol and ICOM—the International Council of Museums—to secure as best we can any items that have disappeared and eventually to return them to Iraq.
	I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, was concerned about what might happen in the event of military conflict. I am sorry if he believes that his attempts to warn the Government were frustrated; I do not believe that they were. Our military in Iraq were given clear information about those possibilities and did their best to ensure that, in the southern part of Iraq, where the UK military were based, the kind of looting that occurred in Baghdad did not take place.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we welcome the Government's support for the Private Members' Bill being put forward in another place by my honourable friend Richard Allan and the response of the DCMS in sending members of the department to Baghdad. However, will the Minister ask our Armed Forces whether they will supply transportation to members of the Iraqi Department of Antiquities in the Basra sector, and ask the Americans to do the same? Not only artefacts were looted in Baghdad; the entire fleet of vehicles that the Department of Antiquities used to get round in to monitor all the other sites was also taken.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, coalition forces obviously have an enormous number of demands on their transport fleets, so I could not possibly give a guarantee as to the availability of vehicles of any kind for work of that sort. I am willing to pass on that request, but it will be a matter of establishing what the priorities are for transport.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, while welcoming the initiative of my noble friend, will she comment on the outcome of a valuable initiative by Neil MacGregor, the director of the British Museum? He got together a consortium of international museums and alerted them to the problems that we now face.
	Will the Minister also comment on the surprising indifference to the protection of museums, as well as banks and government offices, in the closing stages of the conflict?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, like all noble Lords, I am enormously grateful to the intervention of Neil MacGregor, the director of the British Museum. He has been stalwart in the work that he has already undertaken to try to support his colleagues in the museum in Baghdad. I am sure that that will apply to other museums where that might be helpful at a later time. He has put together a consortium of archaeologists from museums in France, Germany and from the Hermitage in Russia, as well as from the United States, under the auspices of UNESCO. Their work over the next months will be of enormous importance.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am afraid that we are out of time.

Speech and Language Therapy

Lord Quirk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to reduce waiting times for access to speech and language therapy.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we have increased the number of speech and language therapists employed in the National Health Service by 17 per cent since 1997, and the number of people in training for those professions by 21 per cent since 1999–2000. We are encouraging service redesign by improving and developing joint working between health and education, and by developing the roles of support staff in order to make the best use of professional skills.

Lord Quirk: My Lords, in declaring an interest as a past president of the Royal College, I thank the Minister for that very encouraging reply. Would she agree that early assessment and intervention are important for anyone suffering from language impairment, but especially so for children and vitally so for pre-school children?
	Has the Minister seen the recent report by Maria Luscombe, which shows that a child of three will wait somewhere between six months and two years before therapy can even start? Two years is a long time when you are three, is it not, when you know that your peak period of language development is slipping away and when your anxious parents know that also slipping away is the chance of a decent education?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord; I could not disagree with anything that he said. Obviously, delay with such young children is crucial. Having recruited an additional 810 new speech and language therapists, we hope that we will be able to make an impact on the figures. Part of the challenge is that, because so many initiatives have been put in place, such as Sure Start, which depend on backing-up contact with children and families with such provisions as speech and language therapies, we have more speech and language therapists but a steady vacancy rate. That is a challenge, and that is why we are glad to see an increase in training places.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, we should bear in mind the fact that the Sure Start scheme is run by the Department for Education and Skills. The SEN code of practice says that,
	"since communication is so fundamental in learning and progression, addressing speech and language impairment should normally be recorded as educational provision unless there are exceptional reasons for not doing so".
	Clearly, there are unacceptable waiting times for those services. To achieve joined-up provision, is it not time that provision of and responsibility for those services was handed over to the DfES?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Lord raises complex, sensitive and indeed historic issues. The Department of Health and the DfES are working closely and collaboratively to develop a plan to facilitate more joint working. We very much look forward to the outcome of that. Speech and language therapy is very fertile ground for joint working. There is no excuse why the workforce confederations and the local education authorities should not be working more closely together. Children's trusts, for example, will create opportunities for such work. We have some extremely good practice. Mansfield District PCT, for example, has an early intervention programme, and Amber Valley has a jointly funded speech and language therapy post. I shall write to the noble Lord—and anyone else who is interested—and give some examples of that good practice. It is such an important programme and direction in which we should go.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as the patients include people recovering from strokes and severe head injuries, does the noble Baroness agree that this therapy is much needed to help them resume life in the community?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. The National Service Framework for Older People draws attention to the need for better and more extensive therapy services for stroke victims. Just as it is important to intervene promptly with children, it is extremely important to intervene promptly and build up the confidence of the stroke victim who has lost his capacity for speech.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I also declare an interest as a past president of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. When I was there, I learned that the need for speech therapy for children and for adults arose from many different causes. As a consequence, responsibility was divided between Health, Education and Social Services—with inevitable confusion, some overlap and many misunderstandings, all of which contributed to the delay mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. So far as I can see, the joint working to which the Minister referred has not been outstandingly successful. The efforts so far at co-operation, co-ordination and unification also have not been dazzling. Will the Government therefore come up with different initiatives from the ones that we have had so far?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we shall certainly be looking at good practice where it exists to see how we can universalise it and encourage other local areas to adopt it. The noble Lord is quite right. The need for joint working was a theme running throughout the report from the Audit Commission last November on special needs. Clearly we want to take more effective action.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who has suffered two strokes. In undertaking the invaluable work that my noble friend has indicated, will she look at the practice of the Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead where there is absolutely no waiting time at all? Does she agree that although the issue which has been raised is extremely patchy, the best is not necessarily the enemy of the good?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am delighted to hear of the noble Lord's positive experience. In overcoming his own difficulties he is an example to many of us. I think that he is an inspiration to all of us. I certainly take the point about the Royal Free and how much we can learn from best practice. The NHS is a learning organisation and we want to learn across the whole organisation.

Baroness Billingham: My Lords, if I may, I should like to press the Minister further and refer back to the points on children made by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. He is perfectly right that three year-olds have a very short time in which to have this remedial work, which will affect not only their educational but possibly their behavioural performance when they get into school. It is such a crucial issue. The Minister talked about what is happening in the future. What hope for the next two years can she offer parents whose children are currently being diagnosed with problems in order to redress the problems that are here and now?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, in the past three years the number of people in training has increased from 457 to 553. Next year we are expecting even bigger increases, to almost 600. People want to become speech therapists. It is our responsibility to enable them to do so and to ensure that we cut down the delays.

European Defence

Lord Howell of Guildford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How the new proposals for a core European defence entity, as announced by France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg, relate to the St Malo accord between the United Kingdom and France.

Lord Bach: My Lords, at their recent summit, the heads of state and government of France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg agreed proposals for a European security and defence union, whose members would commit to go,
	"faster and further in strengthening their defence co-operation",
	including making a commitment to bring,
	"mutual help and assistance in the face of risks of all natures".
	The St Malo accord did not envisage such commitments, and Her Majesty's Government do not, and will not, support any proposals which might lead to common defence within the EU framework.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear and in some ways reassuring reply. However, in a way it does not completely answer the doubts and the questions. Does not the new agreement which has been announced involve setting up a completely independent European Union military headquarters which is to be located at Tervuren in the suburbs of Brussels? Did not the letter of intent for the St Malo agreement specifically rule out that kind of thing? Has not the new agreement been roundly condemned by the United States and by the Prime Minister here, whereas the United States grudgingly accepted the St Malo agreement because it was going to be within the embrace of NATO? It is difficult to see. Can the Minister explain how the approaches in these two completely different philosophies of the defence of Europe can be reconciled? How can they coexist? Is it not time that we review the St Malo agreement to see whether it fits in with the preconceptions of France and Germany as they face their new defence ambitions?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord is right when he says that the Brussels summit on 29th April went too far. It went too far in two particular ways. One was the attempt to duplicate NATO's work, and the other was the European security and defence union idea for those countries which commit themselves, as I said, to bringing,
	"mutual help and assistance in the face of risks of all natures".
	However, we do not think for one moment that that takes away from the strengths of the European security and defence policy as first thought out and discussed at St Malo. That was and remains an appropriate policy for this country and for the European Union.
	It is for that reason that we regret that the meeting was held between those four countries—our four partners—on 29th April. I should add that that meeting did make sensible comments about NATO as the basis of the European collective defence and the only organisation capable of delivering it. It also discussed—perhaps not exactly in the terms that we would like—and commented on improving the European military capability which, after all, is really the crucial question.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, further to the Minister's reply, what efforts are the Government making to create new European military capabilities to meet the challenges set by the Prague summit and the requirements in the Helsinki headline goals?

Lord Bach: My Lords, we are making progress on improving military capabilities. It is being taken forward within the European Capabilities Action Plan—ECAP—which is addressing capability shortfalls against the targets set in the Helsinki headline goal. Defence Ministers from member states will soon be considering proposals to meet those shortfalls. The United Kingdom will be looking for member states to make firm commitments to improve capabilities, including the implementation of short-term solutions to fill gaps until a longer-term programme is delivered.

Lord Carrington: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the four countries concerned discussed these proposals in NATO and, if so, what was the reaction?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not believe that the four countries discussed their proposals with NATO so I am afraid that I am not able to tell the noble Lord what NATO's reaction might have been, although I think he and I can guess.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government be able to give an assurance to the colleagues that they are talking to about further defence that there will be no reduction in Her Majesty's Government's contribution to defence?

Lord Bach: My Lords, as the noble and gallant Lord knows, last year's Comprehensive Spending Review contained the largest increase in defence spending for many years. I cannot guarantee that defence spending will remain as it is or be increased in the next review. I should be foolish to do so. However, I believe that all that has happened during the course of the past couple of years, and in particular in the past three months, indicates that the last thing that should be reduced is defence spending. If I may say so, that also goes for our European colleagues.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, although I strongly support the key point made by my noble friend Lord Howell, the success of any defence co-operation is also critically dependent on the compatibility of equipment and the compatibility of systems. Did the Minister notice the very interesting article in The Times written by General Wesley Clark? He commented on some of the lessons learnt in Iraq and on the great success of, and the tremendous respect he has for, British troops and the quality of our personnel, but he also expressed great concern about our ability to remain compatible with the Americans given the scale of our equipment and its level of sophistication. If there is to be close co-operation in these areas—irrespective of whether the United Kingdom, the United States or any other defence alliance is involved—as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said, there will need to be a sustained level of defence expenditure.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot disagree with what the noble Lord says, especially given his vast experience in these fields. I read the article to which he refers. There is much truth in it, although it ought to be said that the equipment that the UK forces used in the recent conflict in Iraq by and large proved to be extremely successful. We welcome the recognition in the summit I mentioned of the importance of strengthening European defence capabilities, including the acceptance of a British proposal that the European Union should have an agency to focus primarily on the development of defence capabilities. That matter will be discussed again shortly.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am afraid that we are well beyond time.

Courts Bill [HL]

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
	Clause 11 [Retirement and removal of lay justices]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 36:
	Page 5, line 16, leave out subsections (1) to (4).

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: In moving Amendment No. 36 I wish to speak to all the amendments with which it is grouped.
	Your Lordships will know that the Supplemental List would have been abolished under the original provisions of the Bill. However, the Government have listened very carefully to the appeals of a number of your Lordships at Second Reading who set out the magistracy's view on the matter. We are restoring the Supplemental List through this package of government amendments. Many magistrates have stated that they regard being added to the list as recognition of good service for retired magistrates. The Government recognised the need to reward justices' valued service to the community and so are bringing forward these amendments to restore the Supplemental List to statute. I hope that that will give particular pleasure to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, as well as to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby. Although the noble Viscount is not present, he advocated strongly that the Supplemental List should be restored.
	I hope that the amendment of the noble Baronesses was meant in a spirit of gentle reminder and may now be withdrawn. We have tinkered with it a little. I hope that they will allow for that. We have correspondingly amended Clause 11, which sets out the position on ceasing to hold office as a justice of the peace, and we have allowed for the possibility that a serving Bench chairman, or a justice whose case goes part-heard, could remain an active JP until after the age of 70.
	The amendments also retain provision for magistrates who retire before 70 after many years of service to be included on the list. There are some small changes to the current position. As with the amendment of the noble Baronesses, there is no statutory reference to continuing powers to perform certain acts as the majority of these do not require statutory authority to be carried out and can be done by most people and not justices alone.
	The use of the Supplemental List as a disciplinary mechanism has been removed. This reflects the way in which the Supplemental List has evolved since its introduction in 1941. At that time it was used to introduce a retirement age for justices of the peace who refused to resign despite being unable to carry out their functions, as we discussed on a previous occasion. Today the list is seen more as a "roll of honour" for retired justices and as a form of gratitude for the valuable service magistrates have provided society. With great pleasure I beg to move.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 44 and to support government Amendments Nos. 39, 40 and 41.
	The amendment provoked much debate in Committee and, I am pleased to say, received much support. I shall not take up time going over old ground on the amendment except to say that I stand by my previous comments on the matter. I believe that the abolition of the list would be a mean-spirited act which would serve no purpose.
	I am therefore very grateful to the Government for tabling their amendments which fulfil the function we sought and ensure that the Supplemental List will continue to provide recognition of those who have selflessly given up their time to fulfil a role in the community.
	I say rather flippantly that in an idle moment I put a few figures together. If one considers that each daily session is four hours minimum, and that on average magistrates do 40 sessions per annum—which is 160 hours per annum—over 15 years that would be 2,400 hours. If one considers that the maximum number of hours that can be ordered under one community service order is 240, that means that over 15 years magistrates perform at least the equivalent of 10 maximum community service orders. That is surely a worthwhile contribution to the community.
	In Committee I said that I looked forward to returning to the issue and that I hoped that I would hear wonderful news. I am pleased that I have heard just that. Having mentioned the phrase "mean-spirited", I wish to add that in no way do I accuse the Minister of such feelings. Indeed, I pay tribute to the generous way in which she has responded to my amendment and to the part she has played in bringing forward the government amendments that are before us today.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am happy to support the government amendments. They constitute an entirely harmless and almost cost-free method of acknowledging the admirable service which many justices of the peace have performed by continuing to allow them to describe themselves as justices of the peace when they are no longer sitting as members of the court. That is entirely welcome. I am very glad that the Government have given way on the matter.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I cannot speak for my noble friend Lord Tenby, but he would want someone from the Cross Benches to thank the Government for that concession.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 37:
	Page 5, line 33, leave out second "or" and insert—
	"( ) on the ground of a persistent failure to meet such standards of competence as are prescribed by a direction given by the Lord Chancellor, or"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has tabled the amendment to clarify that magistrates may be removed for persistent failure to reach the standards of competence required. Under Section 5 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, the Lord Chancellor has a general power to remove magistrates from office. However, the grounds on which he may do so are not specified. The current removal powers could apply to the case of a magistrate who has proved incapable of meeting the required level of competence in the judicial role.
	I stress that that power is currently recognised, with the procedure to be followed in such cases set out in the directions to advisory committees published by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. The original drafting of Clause 11(6), however, restricts the removal powers in respect of magistrates to incapacity, misbehaviour or neglect of duty. That may create difficulty with removing a lay magistrate who has persistently failed to meet the competencies prescribed for magistrates.
	The amendment will ensure that the current position is maintained, and it is tabled with the support of the Magistrates' Association. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, how often has the Lord Chancellor's current power been exercised?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not have specific numbers at the moment. I can certainly tell the noble Lord that it has been very rare indeed. It is not a frequently used power, but there may be occasions when it proves necessary. That is why the power has to be there. I shall be more than happy to write to him to give him whatever figures we have available, if they are available.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, I am slightly anxious about the wording of the amendment. It suggests that the second "or" in line 33 should be left out, and then that certain words should be inserted. If the second "or" is left out, the amendment seems to mean that "misbehaviour" is defined,
	"on the ground of a persistent failure to meet such standards of competence",
	and so on. The Minister will know very well that "incapacity or misbehaviour" is a phrase commonly found in the grounds for dismissal of public officers of various kinds. Indeed, it is to be found in Clause 17 in relation to district judges and Section 24 of the Courts Act 1971 in relation to circuit judges.
	If the Minister feels the need to add another ground for removal of a lay justice, I can quite understand that. However, if the result of agreeing to the amendment is to limit "misbehaviour" so that it no longer applies to committing criminal offences, for example, it would seem as though the drafting had gone all awry. I hope that I have misunderstood the Minister, but I am slightly anxious about the wording of the amendment.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the amendment. We understand that it meets the requirements of the Magistrates' Association, as the Minister said.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I do not think that one can be too careful in considering legislative powers to remove judges; of course, justices of the peace are judges. I think that I am right in saying that a High Court judge can be removed only by Parliament itself. Although the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, refers to the power of removal of district judges under Clause 17, that does not include a provision such as that inserted by the amendment.
	Perhaps I have an excess of concern about preserving the independence of justices of the peace, but I think that the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, is very germane. I had a few words with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, about the amendment before he had to go elsewhere. He was unaware of occasions during his tenure as Lord Chancellor of having to remove on the grounds specified in the amendment.
	The other question that occurs to me—I would be grateful if the Minister were to comment on it when she winds up the debate—is to ask who will judge persistent failure. Obviously the Lord Chancellor will have to act on the basis of reports, but who will compile those reports? Will the person about whom they are drawn up have any possibility of commenting on them, in order to defend himself or herself against the charge of persistent failure to meet standards of competence?
	So far as I am aware, the existing prerogative power has worked perfectly well over very many centuries. Is it really necessary to make the amendment? I hope that no one will think that I am beginning to cast aspersions—I am plainly not—but extreme caution is called for about such matters. It occurs to me to ask whether putting a power in the Bill on a quite different ground from any existing one might not create a legislative tool that an unscrupulous or biased Lord Chancellor might be inclined to use in the case of a justice of the peace who gave him or her extreme stress or distress.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I want to ask the noble Lord a question before he concludes his remarks. He referred to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton. I have looked around and I cannot see him. Was he referring to me?

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I apologise. I meant the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, whom I have known for so many years. That was a rather late intervention, I thought.
	I wonder whether one is putting a legislative tool in the way of potential misuse, especially as, in the circumstances conjectured, there seems to be no guard for the justice of the peace who will be removed. I would be interested to hear what the noble Baroness has to say.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I want to follow up on what was said by my noble friend Lord Phillips—Lord Phillips of Sudbury, I should point out. The amendment provides that the Lord Chancellor will prescribe in a direction the standards of competence required. Those directions, which will obviously be general directions, do not require any parliamentary procedure. As I understand it, the Delegated Powers Committee, which has just reported on the government amendments, has not suggested that they should.
	On the other hand, it certainly seems that publicity is required for the directions, so that people learn what the prescribed standards are. Therefore, would it not be appropriate to require that directions should at any rate be laid before Parliament, even if there were no parliamentary process for their approval?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall try to deal with all the issues raised. I shall first further clarify an answer that I gave earlier. We do not think that the power has ever been exercised. Generally, the experience has been that magistrates in these positions tend to resign. But we shall certainly make the trawl to ascertain the real position.
	This provision is supported by the Magistrates' Association, primarily because it has a real and a proper interest in making sure that the highest possible standards are maintained by those who discharge this very important function. That is a view with which we concur.
	Before responding to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Goodhart, perhaps I may deal with the matter referred to by my noble friend Lord Borrie. The "or" does not add a paragraph to the subsection. What it does is to create a new ground—hence "(a), (b) 'or' (c)". Stylistically, given the way in which the Bill is drafted, when alternatives are put forward the "or" comes immediately prior to the final paragraph. I hope that that clarifies the point.
	Safeguards will apply to the removal of magistrates. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned, there is a procedure set out in directions to the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee. We believe that this provision is compatible with Article 6. It is also open to judicial review if needs be.
	The competencies already exist. They are known as the magistrates' national training initiative competencies. Recently, they have been revised in consultation with the Magistrates' Association. It is envisaged that these would be formalised, so that the appraisal system would be administered by the Judicial Studies Board against clear competencies. Appraisal results will be considered by the Bench training and development committees, by advisory committees and by the Lord Chancellor. So there is a clear structure against which any lack of competence would be set out before any suggestion of removal.
	The recollection of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, as reported by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is probably right. We do not recollect any occasion when it has been used under this Administration either.
	I hope that that satisfies your Lordships—first, that this is a perfectly proper clause; secondly, that the competencies will be properly defined; and, thirdly, that there will be a proper system through which they will be applied. I hope that noble Lords will be content with that response.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask whether the magistrate who is being removed will have an opportunity to know about that, and to make a response before the decision is taken?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course it will be very important that all magistrates who are trained are trained properly. They will be assessed. In accordance with the rules of natural justice, if action is to be taken against a magistrate that magistrate should properly be told the reason for the action and given an opportunity to make a response. If the proper procedures were not adopted, as I said earlier, it would be open to that magistrate, were he or she so minded and there were grounds on which to justify it, to take the decision to judicial review.
	I have attempted to set out as clearly as I can the process that will be adopted for the assessment. I know that the magistrates' courts association is very pleased that the Judicial Studies Board will become involved in the issues of training and competencies, because these are matters about which it feels fairly strongly. It wants to make sure that magistrates receive the proper training that they need, that their competencies are enhanced to enable them to continue to discharge their duty with the propriety that all would wish.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I hope the Minister will forgive me for intervening again on a small point. Following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, stylistically, if one is going to remove the second "or" and place it as the Minister says, and if that is perfectly correct, one ought also to take out the first "or" and put a comma there.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that the drafting pecularities will be addressed. But I am told that the draftsmen are content with the perfection that is currently before your Lordships.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 39 to 41:
	After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
	"THE SUPPLEMENTAL LIST
	(1) A list, to be known as "the supplemental list", must be kept in the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.
	(2) A lay justice whose name is entered in the supplemental list is not qualified as a justice of the peace to do any act or to be a member of a committee or other body.
	(3) No act or appointment is invalidated by reason of the disqualification of a lay justice under subsection (2)." After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
	"ENTRY OF NAMES IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL LIST
	(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the name of a lay justice who has reached 70 must be entered in the supplemental list.
	(2) The name of a lay justice who, when he reaches 70, is chairman of the lay justices assigned to a local justice area need not be entered in the supplemental list until the term for which he is serving as chairman has ended.
	(3) Where—
	(a) proceedings are, or are expected to be, in progress on the day on which the lay justice reaches 70, and
	(b) the lay justice is exercising functions in those proceedings as a justice of the peace,
	the Lord Chancellor may direct that the name of the lay justice need not be entered in the supplemental list until the proceedings have ended.
	(4) The name of a lay justice must be entered in the supplemental list if—
	(a) he applies for it to be entered, and
	(b) the application is approved by the Lord Chancellor.
	(5) The Lord Chancellor may direct that the name of a lay justice is to be entered in the supplemental list on the ground of incapacity." After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
	"REMOVAL OF NAMES FROM THE SUPPLEMENTAL LIST
	(1) A person's name must be removed from the supplemental list if he ceases to be a justice of the peace.
	(2) A person's name must be removed from the supplemental list if—
	(a) his name is in the list as a result of section (Entry of names in the supplemental list)(4) or (5), and
	(b) the Lord Chancellor directs its removal."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 13 [Records of lay justices]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 42:
	Page 7, line 1, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
	"(c) the fact that a lay justice assigned to the area has ceased to be a justice of the peace or that his name has been entered in or removed from the supplemental list."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 45:
	After Clause 15, insert the following new clause—
	"TRAINING, DEVELOPMENT AND APPRAISAL OF LAY JUSTICES
	(1) Rules may (in addition to making provision under sections 10(4) and 15(6)) make provision for, or in connection with, the training, development and appraisal of lay justices.
	(2) Such rules may make provision for committees, constituted in accordance with the rules, to have such functions as may be specified in the rules, including, in particular—
	(a) providing advice and support to lay justices in connection with their functions as lay justices;
	(b) identifying the training needs of lay justices;
	(c) appraising lay justices and reporting on the results of appraisals;
	(d) giving or withholding approval for the purposes of section 15;
	(e) advising the Lord Chancellor in relation to authorisations of lay justices as members of family proceedings courts or youth courts;
	(f) granting or revoking such authorisations on behalf of the Lord Chancellor.
	(3) The Lord Chancellor must ensure that appropriate training and training materials are provided for lay justices with a view to enabling them to comply with requirements as to training imposed by rules under section 10 or 15 or this section."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment Nos. 46 and 47 not moved.]
	Clause 16 [Rules about chairmen, deputy chairmen and the bench: supplementary]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 48 and 49:
	Page 8, line 24, leave out "14 and 15" and insert "10, 14, 15 and (Training, development and appraisal of lay justices)"
	Page 8, line 25, leave out "14 or 15" and insert "10, 14, 15 or (Training, development and appraisal of lay justices)"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 50:
	After Clause 16, insert the following new clause—
	"DUTY TO CONSULT LAY JUSTICES ON MATTERS AFFECTING THEM ETC.
	The Lord Chancellor must take all reasonable and practicable steps—
	(a) for ensuring that lay justices acting in a local justice area are kept informed of matters affecting them in the performance of their duties, and
	(b) for ascertaining their views on such matters."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 17 [Appointment etc.]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 51:
	Page 8, line 37, leave out from "1871 (c. 48)" to end of line 38.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 52 and 175.
	Clauses 17 and 19 largely re-enact the provisions in the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 with regard to district judges (magistrates' courts) and deputy district judges (magistrates' courts). Subsection (2) of each clause provides that these judges may not take the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath before a lay justice. We have now clarified that this is already the position under the Promissory Oaths Act 1871, so that it is unnecessary for these clauses to say the same thing again.
	Under Clause 19(2) a deputy district judge (magistrates' courts) may take the oaths before a district judge (magistrates' courts). This was the effect of the Bill providing that district judges (magistrates' courts) are to be judges of the Crown Court. On reflection, we think it preferable that both deputy district judges (magistrates' courts) and district judges (magistrates' courts)—and lay justices—should take the oaths before a judge of a higher rank; that is to say, a circuit judge or above. The amendment therefore removes paragraph (b) of Clause 19(2).
	Finally, noble Lords will be heartened to know that we have taken the opportunity to update the wording of the 1871 Act, in the consequential amendments in Schedule 6. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 19 [Deputy District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 52:
	Page 9, line 16, leave out from "1871 (c. 48)" to end of line 19.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 22 [Justices' clerks and assistant clerks]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 53:
	Page 10, line 17, at end insert ", and
	(c) appointed after consultation by the Lord Chancellor with the chairman or chairmen and deputy chairmen of the justices assigned to the local justice area or areas to which the Lord Chancellor intends to assign the justices' clerk."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to my Amendment No. 55 and to government Amendment No. 54.
	We return here to the theme of the importance of the relationship that is built up between the magistrates and their justices' clerk. It is a relationship built on mutual trust and is vital to the effective delivery of justice locally. We debated this matter at length in Committee.
	Clause 22 gives total responsibility for the appointment of justices' clerks to the Lord Chancellor. In my amendments, both in Committee and today, we have not sought to remove or reduce that power. However, we do believe that, before making any appointment, the Lord Chancellor should consult the chairman and deputy chairman of the local justice area to which he intends to assign the justices' clerk. In my amendment, I also made allowance for the fact that the Lord Chancellor may assign the clerk to more than one local justice area. I hope that the amendment is modest and workable.
	By virtue of Section 42(6) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, the local Bench of magistrates must currently be consulted concerning the appointment or removal of a justices' clerk for the area. The Government are removing that statutory consultation procedure and may place it in secondary legislation. We are rather left in doubt.
	I return to the matter only because of our debate in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, stated that his understanding was that the Government would ensure that proper consultation took place. He went on to say that there would be maximum consultation and that he just wanted to avoid anything going into the Bill. He did not specify what the Government would consider to be proper or maximum consultation. I tabled the amendment to secure clarification from the Government.
	I shall be very brief on Amendment No. 55 simply because it is met—in spirit, at least—by the second half of government Amendment No. 54. That amendment, which is in the name of the Lord Chancellor, introduces new subsections (2A) and (2B), the latter of which addresses the kind of issues that I sought to address in Amendment No. 55. I welcome with open arms the first part of government Amendment No. 54. I could make too much of that but I shall not in case I scare it away from the Floor of the House.
	The Government are to be congratulated on thinking further on this matter. It is always nice to see one's words return in the form of a government amendment. The original drafting was put together by non-lawyers and has been tidied up beautifully by the Government. I raised the matter in Committee and pressed it to a Division. Sadly, we lost the vote. The Government are to be congratulated on this occasion for listening to the 97 noble Lords who voted against the Government. I am glad that the Government thought that the views of those noble Lords should perhaps be paramount and tabled that amendment. I am delighted that it will be added to the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall begin with Amendment No. 54. It will place on a statutory footing the assurances that I endeavoured to provide in Committee; namely, that justices' clerks will be assigned to local areas and that the local Bench chairman or deputy chairmen will be consulted before the Lord Chancellor changes a clerk's assignment and assigns him or her to another area.
	My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor proposed the amendment. Its principal effect will be to put beyond doubt the fact that justices' clerks will be assigned to local areas, and confirm the duty on him of consultation.
	We have listened carefully to the persuasive arguments put forward in your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lady Scotland met representatives from the Justices' Clerks' Society. The society's main concern was a perceived threat to the independence of its members. It has been argued that the Bill as drafted could give the Lord Chancellor free rein to move a justices' clerk around the country pretty much at will if he did not like the advice that that clerk was giving. Despite the assurances we have given that that will not happen in practice, I well understand the society's concerns.
	I also reaffirm that the Government have a regard for the close relationship that can exist between Benches of magistrates and their justices' clerks. Amendment No. 54 addresses those concerns by requiring the Lord Chancellor to assign clerks to specific areas and to consult the local Bench before changing a clerk's assignment. The Lord Chancellor would not, therefore, have the alleged free rein to move clerks at will. I can confirm with some confidence that the Justices' Clerks' Society is happy with the changes that we are proposing. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, nods her head in assent.
	We were grateful for the important debate that we had last time and, as the noble Baroness said, to the 97 who have, despite losing the vote, prevailed on this occasion by persuading us of the strength of their feelings and the merit of their argument. In light of that and the amendment that we have tabled, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I will move Amendment No. 54 at the appropriate time.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I shall not detain the Government for long after this agreement across the Chamber. I am aware—and want to state this clearly and not simply by nodding my head—that the Justices' Clerks' Society welcomes the government amendment. I will not proceed with my amendment. I place on the record my thanks to the Justices' Clerks' Society for its briefings throughout the passage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 54:
	Page 10, line 22, at end insert—
	"(2A) The Lord Chancellor—
	(a) must assign each justices' clerk to one or more local justice areas, and
	(b) subject to subsection (2B), may change an assignment so as to assign the justices' clerk to a different local justice area or to different local justice areas.
	(2B) Before changing an assignment of a justices' clerk so that he is no longer assigned to a local justice area, the Lord Chancellor must consult—
	(a) the chairman of the lay justices assigned to that area, or
	(b) if it is not possible or not practicable to consult the chairman, the deputy chairman or such of the lay justices assigned to or acting in the area as appear to the Lord Chancellor appropriate."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 56:
	Page 10, line 25, leave out "arrangements made by him under" and insert "a contract made by virtue of"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 23 [Functions]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 57:
	Page 11, line 19, leave out subsection (7).

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the amendment relates to Clause 23, which covers the functions of justices' clerks. When we debated this matter in Committee, my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew suggested to the Minister that subsection (7) was superfluous. He said:
	"Subsection (7) seems entirely superfluous. The subsection relates to subsections (4) and (5). Subsection (4) begins:
	'The functions of a justices' clerk include'.
	"Subsection (5) begins:
	'The powers of a justices' clerk include'.
	"Therefore, of course those subsections,
	'do not limit . . . the powers and duties of a justices' clerk or . . . the matters on which justices of the peace may obtain assistance from their clerk'".—[Official Report, 10/2/03; col. 499.]
	As my noble and learned friend said, in any Bill it is worth saving some space. I tabled the amendment to seek clarification from the Minister and to establish whether she has subsequently sought advice on the matter. If so, with what result? I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Clause 23 remodels Section 45 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. It makes no changes to the powers or functions of justices' clerks or their assistants.
	The noble Baroness proposes an amendment to Clause 23. The purpose of the amendment would be to delete subsection (7). As she said, that point was first raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. He queried the need for subsection (7) and my noble friend Lady Scotland responded in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, following up points raised in Committee on 10th and 11th February. That correspondence was copied to noble Lords who took part in the debate.
	As was explained at the time, Clause 23(7) is based on what is currently Section 45(7) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 and, before that, Section 28(4) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979. Subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 23 and Section 45 of the 1997 Act set out the functions and powers of justices' clerks. Those are not exhaustive lists; that is reflected by the appearance of the word "include" in both subsections.
	It could be argued that subsection (7) appears to be superfluous. However, it puts beyond doubt the fact that subsections (4) and (5) do not contain exhaustive lists. Given that that formulation has stood us well for 24 years, we are reluctant to change it now. Indeed, it could be argued that by removing the section it may be taken to have more meaning than is currently intended; for example, someone may argue that notwithstanding the use of "include" in subsections (4) and (5) the purpose must have been that those subsections limit the functions and powers of clerks. I hope that that explanation helps and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, I did not find that answer very convincing. The Minister repeated what the proposer of the amendment said: that both subsections (4) and (5) use the word "include"; therefore on the face of the clause it is clear that those are not exhaustive as to the functions or the powers of the justices' clerk. No doubt the historical references of my noble friend are correct, but they are not convincing as to why we should continue with superfluous words in 2003.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I have to agree with him. I am not convinced and, to be honest, I am also more confused than I was in the first place. As it is a matter that was primarily raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, I am duty bound to withdraw the amendment today and to ask my noble and learned friend whether he wants to seek further clarification of the obfuscation by the time we get to Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 25 [Places, dates and times of sittings]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 58:
	Page 11, line 42, at end insert—
	"( ) In exercising his powers under subsection (1), the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the need to ensure that court-houses are locally accessible by persons resident in each local justice area."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the objective of the amendment is to require the Lord Chancellor to have regard to the needs of local residents to be able to have reasonably straightforward access to a magistrates' court. Clause 25 gives the Lord Chancellor the power to direct when and where magistrates' courts shall sit. The Explanatory Notes tell us that,
	"This would allow magistrates' courts' business to be conducted at any place in England and Wales".
	That brings the magistrates' courts in line with other courts.
	That makes it possible for the Lord Chancellor to control sittings of magistrates' courts within the unified courts administration set up by the Bill. It gives him considerable flexibility in deciding where magistrates' courts shall sit or whether they should sit at all. I am not against such flexibility, certainly when it is used constructively and not merely as a cost-cutting measure. I can see that in some circumstances it could lead to a magistrates' court being given the chance to sit in an area where one had previously been closed down, perhaps by being directed to sit in another court building that has survived court closures—a Crown or county court. So there could be advantages to that procedure.
	The problem is that such flexibility in the hands of a centralised bureaucracy, as set up under the Bill, could tempt a future cost-cutter—forbid that we should consider the current incumbent of that office as such—to close down even more magistrates' courts on the basis that one could hold the court in a Crown Court building further away and people could travel that little further without too much difficulty or cost to the individual.
	We must ensure that flexibility is used to make courthouses at least as accessible as they are now, and if possible more accessible. In the past the Lord Chancellor has sought to avoid the blame for court closures by pointing out that technically the magistrates' courts committees give sanction for the closure of a court. In future, under the Bill, it will clearly be his responsibility.
	This clause could open up the way for further reductions in magistrates' courts venues unless we make it clear on the face of the Bill that the Lord Chancellor should consider access for residents in local justice areas. I am not proposing anything that is mandatory or prescriptive; he has only to consider the matters. I hope to impose that clarity on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: My Lords, I support the amendment. I have three points to make of a purely practical kind. First, these days one-way traffic causes people to travel quite long distances in a city or a town. Therefore we must ensure that courts are not placed in positions where people can get to them only by a roundabout route if they are in a vehicle or a taxi.
	Secondly, many people will have to arrive in vehicles as they may be disabled or they may have to carry a number of books and other things for their court attendance—that applies particularly to barristers and solicitors. Therefore there must be a suitable stopping place in front of the court building where people can park for a few moments while they get in or out of a vehicle.
	Thirdly—this point follows my second point—it would be highly desirable, if feasible, for a good many vehicles to be parked quite close to the court. I know that that will not always be easy. I have some experience of the courts in London and I know that many of them have no parking facilities whatever—indeed no easy stopping place close to the court. A standard example is Bow Street which is fairly close to here. There is no pavement outside and taxis cannot wait there for long.
	I hope that the Government will do their best to overcome that problem. I grant that it will not always be easy, but I hope that strenuous efforts will be made to deal with it.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I am happy to support the amendment. Few matters have caused more concern in respect of court administration over recent years than the closure of magistrates' courts, particularly in rural areas where the alternative is often to travel some 20 or 30 miles to the nearest town. We believe it is of the highest importance that justice, particularly in magistrates' courts, should be local. That is in the interests of all concerned. It is in the interests of the defendants and more importantly in the interests of the victims and other witnesses. It is in everyone's interest that they should have access to a court reasonably close to where they live and should not be compelled to travel what are in some cases substantial distances to the nearest magistrates' court. Given the large number of cases that are dealt with by magistrates' courts, we believe that the Lord Chancellor should be required to bear that in mind.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the measures in the Bill and in the Licensing Bill should make courts more accessible by removing restrictions as to where magistrates' courts may sit and by allowing the use of non-court buildings where appropriate. Giving the new unified administration control of the entire court estate will also afford greater opportunities for co-location of county courts within magistrates' courts in rural areas. I take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said about the difficulties that have been caused by the movement of courts and what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said about the difficulties with traffic and matters of that kind.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, proposes an amendment to Clause 25. It will require the Lord Chancellor, when directing places at which magistrates' courts may sit, to have regard to the need to ensure that courthouses are locally accessible by persons resident in each local justice area. The amendment is similar in nature to Amendment No. 56 which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, moved in Committee.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising again such an important issue. I say straightaway that I understand her concerns. However, as my noble friend Lord Bassam said in Committee on 10th February, improved access to local courts can be achieved by unifying the administration of the courts. That will allow better use of the court estate. For example, we have identified around 70 county courts where there is potential for co-location of hearings with magistrates' courts. Joint use will make those courts more viable than maintaining under-used facilities that might otherwise be threatened with closure.
	As my noble friend Lord Bassam also made clear, the rural White Paper of 2000 ensures that rural needs are taken into account as part of the formal policy-making process from April 2001 onwards. The Lord Chancellor would have to have regard to this rural-proofing process when making directions under this clause.
	Furthermore, provisions in Clause 25 and elsewhere in the Bill and the Licensing Bill, currently in another place, will remove statutory restrictions on where magistrates' courts can sit. That will introduce greater flexibility and allow the use of non-court buildings in local areas where appropriate. Certainly, one can see how that might be useful if there were specific difficulties which needed to be overcome and which could be best met by having a local point at which to resolve matters.
	The Lord Chancellor will take into account the ease of access to a court. He is required, for example, to ensure access for the disabled under the Disability Discrimination Act.
	In order to help, I conclude by saying that we hope that the agency will be a platform for other improvements. For example, we are considering whether we can increase the number of places where civil and family hearings take place, possibly by as many as 30 to 40 outlets to make access more convenient. We shall consult court users and other stakeholders on that issue later this year.
	In Committee, a number of noble Lords said that there have been cases where, if co-location had occurred, certain courts would not have closed and a valuable resource would have been retained for the people in that area and the local community. We concur with that view. Therefore, this gives us the opportunity to look at the needs of each locality and try as best we can to use the court estate to its best effect. In view of what I have said, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for their support, and to the Minister for her careful response. I agree entirely with her, as I hope I expressed in my opening remarks, that if there is flexibility and proper use of the estate, then the provisions in the Bill could open up—she used the term "co-location"—more opportunities. My concern is to have clarity on the face of the Bill and to bring together the guarantees and the different parts, whether it is rural-proofing—I am not too sure what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, would make of "rural-proofing", but that is for another day—or whatever.
	Of course Front-Benchers are not allowed to have a personal view. However, if I were allowed such a personal view, I would have to say that I am very passionate about the matter of access. It is because I have that passion for access that I believe that I should test the opinion of the House on the amendment today.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 58) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 89.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 59:
	Page 12, line 2, after "distribution" insert "and transfer"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 59, 102 and 103 clarify that a magistrates' court transferring a criminal or civil matter to another magistrates' court must have regard to directions made by the Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, under Clause 25(2). That will ensure, in particular, that when deciding whether to transfer a criminal matter, the magistrates' court takes account of the needs of victims, witnesses and other interested parties.
	The principal effect of the amendments would be to put beyond doubt that the directions to be made by the Lord Chancellor will cover the transfer as well as the distribution of general business of the magistrates' courts.
	I am sure that all noble Lords present today will recall that in Committee, on Amendment No. 73, which was tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Hunt, I confirmed, as the Minister speaking for the Government, that I would table an amendment to Clause 25. Amendment No. 73 would have amended Clause 41 to require a magistrates' court to hear representations from all parties before transferring a criminal matter. At that stage, I said that the amendment was unnecessary, given the provisions of Clause 25(4), which states that the directions to be made under Clause 25(2) may, in particular, require the court to take account of where the offence was committed, where the witnesses or the majority of witnesses reside, or where the person charged with the offence resides. However, on reflection, I said that we would consider Clause 25(2) again. I also acknowledged that the wording could perhaps be improved or clarified to refer to "the transfer" as well as "the distribution" of the business of magistrates' courts. Happily, I can tell the House that Amendment No. 59 makes that change.
	Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 introduce new subsections to Clauses 41 and 43 which make clear that the power to transfer criminal or civil proceedings under these clauses must be exercised in accordance with any directions made under Clause 25(2).
	With that careful explanation of why we have tabled the amendment at this stage, I hope that noble Lords will be happy with what the Government have done. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his further reflection on those matters. They arose as a result of an amendment tabled and moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 31 [Fines officers]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 60:
	Page 14, line 36, leave out "(whenever passed)"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I will deal with all the amendments in this group together, as they all flow from the clarification of the meaning of "enactment" introduced by Amendment No. 160 to Clause 97. That amendment introduces to the Bill a definition of "enactment" to ensure that there is no doubt that the word also includes subordinate legislation and that it refers to an enactment whenever passed or made. The amendment also makes clear that the clauses dealing with Northern Ireland are also included.
	The other amendments in the group all flow from that amendment. Amendments Nos. 60 and 85 simply remove the words "whenever passed" where they appear after the word "enactment" in those clauses. Amendments Nos. 114 and 122 both remove the words "whenever passed" and ensure that those provisions also refer to revoking an enactment. As noble Lords will no doubt know, "revoke" is the correct term when referring to subordinate legislation. Amendments Nos. 129 and 157 simply ensure that reference is included to revoking an enactment. This is a technical drafting matter. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Seccombe: moved Amendment No. 61:
	Page 15, line 4, leave out "Schedule 2, or"

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 62 and 63.
	This is the first amendment on the important issue of fines. The Bill enables the Lord Chancellor to amend the operation of the fines collection scheme that is being piloted. That means that the scheme that will ultimately be implemented may bear little resemblance to the one debated in the House. The amendment would delete the power of the Lord Chancellor to modify or alter Schedule 2 without the approval of Parliament.
	We realise that the scheme must have some flexibility in order to produce the best possible scheme to be implemented. However, we feel that the Bill allows too much. Allowing fines officers to have a quasi-judicial function is a large step, and it must be monitored. It is vital that we do not blur the line between administration and the Bench. The European Convention on Human Rights requires punishment to be imposed by an independent and impartial tribunal, after a fair and public hearing. The Bill could be interpreted as not complying with that requirement. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we support the amendment. If we are to come up with a schedule that is substantially modified, as compared with that which appears in the Bill, there ought to be a proper parliamentary procedure, involving affirmative rather than negative resolution.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the provisions of Clause 31 are necessary if we are to implement the best possible fines collection scheme. By piloting different elements of the scheme in different areas, we will ensure that the effectiveness of the new measures can be evaluated. We will then be able to adjust any parts of the scheme that are found to be ineffective and put to Parliament for approval a package of tried and trusted measures for national roll-out.
	Amendments Nos. 61 and 62, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay of St Johns and Lady Seccombe, would prevent the modification of Schedule 2 before or after the pilot schemes for which Clause 31 allows. Amendment No. 63 would make the regulations setting out the detail of the fines collection scheme subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses for raising again the important issue of appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. I understand their concern to ensure that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said so eloquently on the previous occasion,
	"what we see is what we get".—[Official Report, 10/2/03; col. 510.]
	The Bill provides for the use of the negative resolution procedure for the details of the pilots and, subsequently, the affirmative resolution procedure for the entire package, as determined in the light of the pilots. Thus, the scheme finally arrived at will receive full parliamentary scrutiny. However, as I said in Committee on 10th February—I refer noble Lords to col. 511 of Hansard—the provision in Clause 31(5), which allows modifications of Schedule 2, is necessary if we are to get full value from the pilots. As several noble Lords made plain during the debates, the enforcement measures are a significant departure from existing practice, and the Government believe that they should be thoroughly tested before implementation. Amendment No. 61 would remove the flexibility to test different parts of the scheme in different areas, defeating the point of having a pilot scheme.
	The Government are further considering how to develop the arrangements. We are considering whether to add to the scheme by making wider use of attachment of earnings and deductions from benefits in the fines collection scheme, particularly for offenders with a track record of default. We are also considering whether to create a new offence penalising those who fail to provide means information and/or the financial details necessary to allow an attachment order to be made. In the light of such considerations, I give the House early warning that we may introduce further amendments to the schedule in another place. Noble Lords will, of course, have the opportunity to consider them in due course.
	In addition, the Home Office is examining the feasibility of alternative sentences, including unpaid work instead of fines in particular circumstances. If the new amendments and alternative sentences are taken forward—I say "if" because it is right for the House to be apprised of the fact that that is within contemplation and is likely to occur after the Bill leaves this place—they will need to be piloted along with those already set out in Schedule 2.
	Under the current provisions, once the pilot schemes have been evaluated, the Lord Chancellor may make an order under Clause 31(8) modifying Schedule 2 and associated legislation, in the light of experience gained. Amendment No. 62 would remove that power. The effect would be that, even if an element of the scheme were found to be ineffective or unworkable, it would have to remain in the scheme, because it would be impossible to modify or remove it. I cannot believe that that is what noble Lords on the Benches opposite or the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would wish. Furthermore, any temporary alterations to existing enactments in connection with the operation of the pilots would not be made permanent. That would render the whole scheme unworkable on implementation.
	As the scheme stands, any permanent modifications to Schedule 2 and/or existing enactments would be subject to affirmative resolution by virtue of Clause 98 before the scheme was rolled out nationally. We would have an opportunity to taste and see if it was good. If it was good, we could bring it back to the House, which would have the opportunity to consider it using the affirmative resolution procedure. If it were not satisfactory, we would not have to proceed with it. We would have a basis on which this House and another place would be able to make an informed decision. That is the better way.
	Amendment No. 63 would go further, by making any regulations on fine enforcement made under the Bill subject to affirmative resolution. As I made clear in Committee, the Government do not believe that the detailed arrangements for the Schedule 2 pilots should require a high level of parliamentary scrutiny. That view was accepted by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, which found that making the power for fines regulation subject to negative resolution represented appropriate delegation and the correct level of parliamentary control.
	The Government understand the concerns expressed about modifications to the scheme without explicit consent through affirmative resolution, but the Bill already prevents the fines collection scheme from being implemented nationally, unless Parliament has approved the final scheme in that way.
	In the light of what I said—it was as clear an explanation as I could muster—I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment. The scheme that we have set out provides the House and another place with the clarity and opportunity that they, rightly, should have.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his support. We are in a whole new world of human rights legislation, so there is much to consider. I thank the noble Baroness for her very detailed reply and her explanation of the new thinking in the Lord Chancellor's Department. It may be enough for us not to bring the amendment back at Third Reading, but because there is so much in what she said, we should like to consider. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 not moved.]

Baroness Seccombe: moved Amendment No. 64:
	After Clause 31, insert the following new clause—
	"POWER OF THE COURT TO ORDER FINES OFFICERS TO REPORT BACK TO COURT
	A magistrates' court may require a fines officer to report to it on the conduct of any case."

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, we are very concerned about the removal of powers from magistrates to fines officers. Currently, there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that magistrates can keep control of a case and exercise their judicial function rather than handing it over to the fines officers. We were told by the Minister in Committee that the court may reserve a case to itself by not making a matter subject to the fines collection scheme or that a fines officer simply can refer a case back to a court. However, there is nothing in the Bill to state this.
	We are particularly concerned with the issue of a court being able to keep control of a case when the punishment will concern a clamping order. If such an order needs to be made, it should be made by the magistrate or the judge concerned with the case. It is imperative that magistrates keep judicial control of a case even where it is useful to use the functions of a fines officer. Again, this relates to the issue of human rights. It makes sense to include in the Bill provisions for magistrates to keep control of a case and manage the fine even if they are not dealing with the administration. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: My Lords, in this Bill we are dealing with a new and very unusual power. Although I support the amendment proposed by my noble friend as far as it goes, I say with deep respect to her and to my noble friend Lady Anelay that the proposed new clause does not go far enough. I think that instead of it just being an enabling power, it ought to be an automatically compulsory power. In other words, it should read:
	"The fines officer shall report to the court on each case".
	After all, the court was responsible for fines in each case and has the right and responsibility to consider what has been done in each case. Therefore, I very much hope that at Third Reading—even if this amendment is accepted by the Government now—we could have an even stronger provision.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course I hear the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and, indeed, by the noble Baroness. I hope that I shall reassure noble Lords that that anxiety is misplaced. The fines collection scheme is designed to reduce the burden on judicial and court time by transferring administrative responsibilities—the collection of fines—to the fines officers. There is nothing in these provisions or in the scheme to prevent the court from monitoring particular cases if that is thought by the court to be desirable. So there is nothing in the provisions which would prevent the court from saying, on any given case, precisely what it requires of the fines officer; precisely under what conditions it would expect to have the matter referred back to it for consideration; and keeping control of any individual case in a manner which it deems to be appropriate and specific to the needs of that case.
	Noble Lords will know that there is a wide variety in the nature of cases and defendants who come before the court. Some come for the first time; some come after having many appearances. The court has to make an assessment as to the most appropriate way of dealing with each case and fashion both the sentence and the methodology adopted to that particular case. To require each and every case to be referred back to the magistrates may put an unnecessary burden upon them which they would not seek themselves.
	The new clause after Clause 31 proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, would allow the court to place a requirement on the fines officer. Although I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising such an important issue and I understand her concerns, in responding to a similar amendment in Committee tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Hunt of Wirral, I made it clear that the fines officer can refer the case back to the court at any time. There is also nothing to prevent the court from stipulating at point of sentencing that it wishes the fines officer to report back on the progress of a particular case within the fines collection scheme, if that is thought desirable. In addition, I should add that the court can take the matter back if the offender asks for the matter to be referred after a discretionary decision of a fines officer.
	We suggest that the right balance is as currently structured. I draw the attention of the noble Baroness to paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 which provides that the offender can appeal to the court against the fines officer's decision. Therefore, we suggest that this amendment is unnecessary.

Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, she referred to the opportunity of the court to get a report from the fines officer. The decision that the court would have to make as to whether to ask for that information surely would place a much bigger burden on the court than just being told what has happened in each case. Would that not simplify matters?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I should emphasise—the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will know—that the fines officer will be an officer of the court. There will be a record kept of what happens in relation to each and every case, and the court will be seized of that information. I was seeking to make clear that when a magistrate comes to hear a particular case, the magistrate is, in accordance with propriety, told about the background of the defendant and the nature of the case, and makes the informed decision as to the most appropriate sentence.
	It is open to the magistrates to say the precise basis upon which they are making the order, what they wish the fines officer to do and, if they so desire, the events which would trigger the matter coming back to them for further consideration. All that is perfectly possible under the scheme. It allows the magistrates to choose those cases which they find troubling or concerning, where they think that opportunity should be seized themselves. Of course it is open, too, to the defendant, if he disagrees with the way in which the discretion is being discharged, to have the matter referred back to the magistrates for them to look at it also. Therefore, it meets the needs of both parties in that regard.
	We think that it would enable the fines officers to be of great assistance to the magistracy in discharging their duty. The administrative reduction of the burden would be welcome. It is not meant in any way to take away the primary role and function that the magistrates will have to impose the sentence and to manage the case.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that detailed explanation. In my experience, when defendants appear before the court for sentencing and a fine is imposed, at that stage, almost all are optimistic about how they will pay it. They agree readily to pay the fine within 28 days. However, I am concerned that if that fails and a defendant does not pay the fine, even when instructed to do so by instalments, the fines officer is then able to issue a clamping order. That action changes the character of the case. At that point, I should have thought that the court ought to be able to look again at the case and make the order, rather than leaving that power to the fines officer.
	I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for his suggestion. We feel that there is much to consider before Third Reading, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
	Schedule 2 [Collection of fines by fines officers]:

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 66:
	Page 61, line 34, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) and insert—
	"(2) Interest shall be payable from the date of default on the amount of the fine for the time being unpaid at the rate of interest payable on judgment debts."

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this large group of amendments, most of which are consequential, deals with one issue; that is, instead of being faced with a lump-sum increase in the fine, a defaulter should be required to pay interest on it.
	Paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Bill provides for a once-and-for-all increase in the fine in the case of default. Such "default" means that a person has failed to pay the fine on the date when it was due. The purpose of the amendments is to replace that once-and-for-all liability of the defaulter to an increase in the fine with a running liability to pay an increase which will accrue from day to day while the fine remains unpaid.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Does any other enactment include a provision of the kind now being proposed?

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, not that I am aware of, but I am also not aware of any other legislation that provides for a fine to be increased on default.
	Under paragraph 6 of Schedule 2, a discount can be made available for payment made in due time. That is perfectly acceptable. It is a principle already used quite widely as regards, for example, parking fines. A discount is available for prompt payment. But paragraph 9—while I am not sure whether it is unique, it is certainly highly unusual—provides for an increase on default. In effect, it duplicates paragraph 6 by providing that if the fine is paid on time, the discount is available, but if the fine is not paid on time, not only is the discount lost, but potentially one becomes liable to an increase.
	Although I would like the Minister to confirm it, I assume that the amount of the increase will be fixed by the regulations and will not be a matter left to the discretion of the fines officer. However, under paragraph 11 the fines officer will have the power to waive or reduce the amount of the increase.
	I suggest that that is the wrong approach. A substantial increase on the default, over and above the loss of the discount, may create hardship. Furthermore, a one-off increase presents no further incentive for the defaulter to pay thereafter. I believe that it would be better to impose a more gentle increase, but one that would keep on running until the date of payment. Such an increase would be interest. I suggest that the appropriate rate of interest would be the rate of interest due by statute on judgment debts. It would be simple interest, of course, and I do not believe that it would be a problem for the fines officer to calculate the amount of interest and then to tell the defaulter what is due.
	That would be a fairer and better way of achieving the result that the Government intend and which we support; that is, of ensuring that someone who defaults on the payment of a fine is not left unscathed by the delay. However, for the reasons I have set out, I think that this would be a better method than the one that has been chosen by the Government. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis: I am not disposed to speak against the idea that has been proposed, but I do not think that, in practice, it should be encouraged. My uncertainty stems from the fact that, while a reduction in the fine as envisaged in the Bill serves as an incentive to prompt payment, the aspect that has been outlined by the noble Lord is rather uncertain. In my view, that uncertainty is inimical to the purposes of the legislation.
	The proposal adumbrated by the noble Lord is not totally foreign to my views, but having regard to what I have said, I think that the element of uncertainty that would be introduced is something that should not be encouraged. However, I shall wait to hear what my noble friend has to say in response.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I shall cite my experience once again. Those who do not pay their fines usually have a string of other debts, and it is for that reason that they do not pay their fines either. However, they avoid paying fines for an added reason: their other debts do increase as a result of interest being added to them. So, naturally, the debt that is pushed to the bottom of the pile is the fine.
	We believe that it would be helpful to have such a form of—how can one put it?—incentive so that fine defaulters will know where they stand. Their fines will be put in the same position as any other form of debt.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I seem to be repeating these words rather often today, but I do understand the concerns that lie behind this issue. Perhaps I may go through how we have sought properly to address it.
	Amendments Nos. 66 to 79, 82 and 84 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Thomas of Gresford, would replace the existing arrangements set out in Schedule 2 to the Bill which allow for an increase in the fine on default, with a regime of charging interest on the fine for every day that any amount of it remains unpaid. It is that point which we believe would be quite difficult, because interest rates may or, indeed, will change. Calculations made on a day-to-day basis may prove to be a challenge. I shall amplify on that later in my remarks.
	I am pleased that we now have the opportunity to debate this issue. It was raised both at Second Reading and in my letter of 23rd December, when I touched on it in response to the points then made. The subject was raised again in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe.
	The Government understand the concerns which have prompted these amendments. They seek, first, to ensure that the fines officer does not, by activating an increase in the fine upon default, stray into judicial territory and, secondly, to ensure that the defaulter can repay the fine at a more reasonable rate rather than facing a single uplift.
	The Government have taken great care to ensure that the fines officer does not have the power to alter the decision of the court. It is for the court to make a collection order under Schedule 2. The fines officer then exercises discretion within the constraints of that order. The fines officer has no power to determine the level of the increase. Thus I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the amount of the increase will be fixed by regulations and will not be set at the discretion of the fines officer. The increase is an automatic consequence of default under the terms of the collection order, which will be waived on subsequent co-operation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned the issue of fixed penalty fines for road traffic offences. He will know that there are provisions that, just as you can get a discount for prompt payment, there can be an increase for delayed payment. So this is not a novel departure.
	The level of increase will be set in the regulations made by the Lord Chancellor and expressed as a percentage of the original fine. The proposed pilot schemes will enable the effectiveness of different levels of increase to be assessed, and we shall consult the magistrates' courts community before the level that will apply to the final scheme is set.
	Of course, measures already exist allowing for interest to be levied on unpaid confiscation orders under Section 10 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994—which is due to be replaced by Section 12 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002—but applying such a model to fine enforcement would have a number of disadvantages.
	First, the procedure would be administratively complex. The fines officer would have to perform a fresh calculation whenever it became necessary to check the amount outstanding, whether for the purpose of reminding the defaulter of the sum now due or for the purpose of ensuring that the amount owed, plus interest, has been accounted for. Both the fines officer and the offender would, in effect, be attempting to hit a moving target.
	There would be enormous scope for confusion and for appeals arising from disputed calculations. The likelihood of small over-payments or under-payments could not be ruled out and would give rise to onerous administrative work for court staff, greatly increasing the running cost of the scheme. Calculating the interest daily would be a huge amount of work for even very small sums of money. For example, on a £100 fine, the interest at a rate of 8 per cent per annum is £8 per year, or just over 2p per day.
	Of course similar drawbacks may be said to apply to charging interest on confiscation orders. However, the number of cases of confiscation orders in default and where interest is charged is considerably lower than the number of fines in default. In 2000, 836 confiscation orders were made in relation to drug trafficking offences; in the same year, more than 1 million fines were imposed. Furthermore, the sums involved in confiscation orders are often considerably higher than the average fine. In 2000, the average confiscation order was just under £6,000; the average fine was £143.
	The administrative burden that the noble Lord's proposals would impose would not be inconsiderable. I agree with my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis that such uncertainty and variation should not be encouraged.
	The amendments set no ceiling on the amount of interest that could be charged. In extreme cases this could lead to defaulters owing sums that they were simply unable to pay. There is a danger that this could lead to a disinclination to face up to the problem, pushing the defaulter into taking out further credit or causing him to commit further crimes in order to raise the money. There may also be disputes over the period the fine has been outstanding, especially in courts where there are not the facilities to accept immediate cash payments.
	I take on board the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, about making sure that there is an incentive for the fines not to be pushed to the bottom of the pile and for other debts to take precedence. We believe that the scheme we propose will achieve this without the undue complexity of the calculations envisaged in the amendment.
	As it stands, Schedule 2 allows for a single increase upon default. This will be a percentage of the original fine, restricted to a maximum of 50 per cent. That is a far simpler calculation for the fines officer. It sets a limit on the amount that could fall to be paid by the defaulter, and the defaulter will know immediately how much extra he will have to pay in consequence of default or could avoid paying by compliance.
	Finally, the 50 per cent set in the legislation for increase and discount are maximums designed to limit the Lord Chancellor's power. There is no presumption that the actual figures used will be 50 per cent or that the percentage discount will necessarily be the same as the percentage increase. We hope that the pilots will enable us to determine the optimum percentage.
	We understand the concerns expressed but we believe that the noble Lord's proposals are far more complex than the measures we propose. The pilots will assist us to see whether we have got it right and, in accordance with the other issues, we shall be able to assess and make further comment through the procedures I have outlined. With those assurances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the noble Baroness's arguments against our proposals do not really bear close examination. In particular, that applies to the argument that it will be very difficult to calculate such interest. My view is that any competent fines officer should be able to do the calculation in about 30 seconds on a pocket calculator. It would certainly be perfectly simple to set up a program on the office computer. It would simply be a matter of entering the amount of the fine, the date of the default and the date of payment. The program would then calculate the amount due within a few seconds. I cannot see that that would cause any problems.
	The suggestion has also been made that the interest might eventually lead to the accumulation of sums that defaulters would be unable to pay. At present, it is proposed that an increase could be made of up to 50 per cent in one go, which would take effect immediately. However, if interest is charged at the rate applicable to judgment debts, which I believe currently ranges between 5 per cent and 6 per cent, it would take eight years to build up to the level of a 50 per cent—

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I tried to make it clear that the 50 per cent would not automatically apply; it is a maximum that would set a limit against which the Lord Chancellor could not fix it. It is by no means sure that 50 per cent will be the appropriate figure adopted.

Lord Goodhart: I appreciate that, my Lords. However, I also assume that it will not be a 5 per cent or a 10 per cent increase, because that would not really make much difference. One is probably looking at an increase of, say, 25 per cent, which means that it will take about four years before the interest becomes equivalent to the amount of the increase. For the reasons outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, there is a very clear incentive on people who have fines not to pay them simply because, unlike personal debts, they do not increase.
	We are dealing with an important group of amendments. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 66) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 89.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 67 to 79 not moved.]

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 80:
	Page 63, line 2, at end insert "(other than a clamping order)"

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, Amendment No. 80 concerns clamping orders. Paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 sets out a number of further steps which can be taken against defaulters by the fines officer. Those steps include the classic methods of enforcing debt, such as distress warrants or an attachment of earnings order. I see no problem with the fines officer making routine enforcement orders of that kind.
	The further steps which can be taken include a vehicle clamping order. That is not primarily a method of getting the money, though it could eventually lead to the money being obtained by the sale of the vehicle, but is intended to put pressure on the defaulter to pay the fine by making life particularly difficult for him or her. Depending on the circumstances, it may make life very difficult indeed. The clamping order could deprive the defaulter of the means to travel to work. It could deprive the defaulter's spouse or partner of the means to travel to work. It could deprive the defaulter of the means to take his or her children to school. A clamping order is therefore a very powerful weapon to ensure the payment of a fine.
	I accept that there should be power to make a clamping order. It is, no doubt, a very effective method of getting a fine paid. But we believe that such a power should not be wielded by a fines officer, who is not a judicial officer. If the fines officer thinks that a clamping order is needed, he should be required to refer the case back to the magistrates in order that they can make the clamping order themselves if they see fit. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Amendment No. 80 would remove the sanction of clamping from the list of measures available to the fines officer as further steps which may be taken against persistent defaulters. Similarly, Amendment No. 81 alters the wording of paragraph 13(3) of Schedule 2 to restrict the making of a clamping order to the court.
	The National Audit Office has recommended delegating more enforcement responsibilities to administrative staff. The fines collection scheme will allow for this. It will be for the court to make a collection order under the scheme. But once the collection order is made, we believe it right that the fines officer should take the purely administrative decision as to the best way of enforcing it. In some cases, that will involve making a clamping order. However, only the court will be able to order the sale of a vehicle if the fine then remains unpaid.
	The Government believe that clamping a defaulter's car will prove an effective method of encouraging payment. As I said in Committee when we debated a similar amendment, we know that vehicles are sometimes the closest thing to individuals' hearts—closer, sometimes, even than their family members. Therefore, as I said then, vehicles must be jealously protected. Faced with the choice of paying a fine or having the precious vehicle clamped and possibly sold by order of the court, we believe that many defaulters will find the money.
	The knowledge that the fines officer can and will use this sanction without the need to return to the court, should be a powerful incentive to pay up. If it works as intended—and this will be determined by the pilot schemes—the number of defaulters who are actually deprived of the use of their vehicles for substantial periods, or whose vehicles are subsequently sold, is likely to be small.
	The pilot schemes will reveal whether clamping will cause significant problems. Should any element of the scheme fail to operate as intended, we will take the opportunity provided by Clause 31 to make any necessary adjustments before putting the final scheme to Parliament for approval.
	There is already a precedent for vehicle clamping without a court order. The legislation for congestion charging allows for a vehicle found to be within the congestion zone to be clamped if that vehicle has three outstanding fines. There does not need to be a prior reference to the court, and authorised enforcement officers are able to order the clamping of the vehicle. This would obviously be a matter about which the court could express a view at the time of imposing the sentence. It could caution or advise the defendant that this may be a method which would be used to enforce those decisions.
	We think this is a useful incentive. Once we have evaluated the results of the pilot, we will of course reflect on whether it proves to be as effective as we hope. However, we have a way of expunging this proposal if it is not as successful as one would like. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the other amendment in this group is in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Seccombe. Although they did not speak to it, I understand, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said in a previous debate, that their view is the same as ours.
	I will of course consider carefully what the Minister has said. We will have to consider, as no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, will consider, whether an amendment in one or other of these forms should be brought back on Third Reading. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 not moved.]

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 83:
	Page 64, line 11, at end insert—
	"( ) The magistrates' court may (either before or after the end of the period of 10 working days) extend the time for appealing under this paragraph."

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the amendment is more important than it may look at first sight. It is concerned with the strict time limits on the steps to be taken by a defaulter under Schedule 2 for an appeal against an order by a fines officer. Paragraph 15 imposes a 10-day limit on an appeal by a defaulter against a further steps notice.
	My amendment is defective, in that other 10-day limits should have been included. For example, an appeal made under paragraph 8 from a decision by the fines officer under paragraph 7 is subject to the 10-day limit, as is an appeal under paragraph 11 from a decision made under that paragraph. However, the amendment is sufficient to raise the issue.
	The time limits are strict, and well established legal authority exists that states that if there is a time limit in a Bill and the Bill says nothing about a power to extend that time, the time cannot be extended however unfortunate the circumstances. Of course, it is right that an appeal should be brought within 10 working days if there is no good reason for failing to do so. However, undoubtedly there are problems in that regard.
	First, the period of 10 working days is measured from the date of the decision, not from the receipt of notice of the decision. The actual time for the appeal may be as little as seven working days. Although first-class post is in theory delivered within one day—and I assume that regulations will require that the notice is to be delivered by first-class post—it is well known that first-class post, especially if it is posted at the end of the working day, as much office post is, does not necessarily arrive on the morning of the next working day.
	Furthermore, there is the possibility, which in many cases will be fact, that a defaulter will have left his or her home for work before the delivery of the post and will not get the notice until the evening. If one assumes that the post is not delivered until the second morning, and is not opened until that evening, that reduces the time available to seven days. At the very least, the Government should be prepared to reconsider that point. Will they consider whether the limit should be 10 working days from the receipt of the notice rather than from the date of the decision?
	Secondly, and even more importantly, there may easily be entirely legitimate reasons for the notice of the decision not being brought to the attention of the defaulter in time for an appeal. A defaulter may be working away from home or on holiday—even defaulters are entitled to take holidays. There may be a family illness, which requires the defaulter to be in a different part of the country. There are perfectly good reasons why a 10-day time limit may be broken.
	When tight time limits are imposed and no power is given to extend those time limits for any reason whatever, an injustice is bound to occur. The Minister said in her letter that that could be sorted out by the pilot scheme. However, such a scheme has to operate within the boundaries of Schedule 2 as it now stands, and it cannot be part of a pilot scheme to give leave to extend the time. I would go further and say that absence of a power to extend the time is so plainly unreasonable that I see no need to await the results of the pilot. The Government should accept the amendment without waiting for the results of the pilot. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: My Lords, Schedule 2 is complicated and at times rather obscure. We surely have an obligation to ensure that justice will be done, in spite of its complexity. In particular, I think that paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 needs to be clarified and expanded. I warmly support Amendment No. 83, which I think will ensure that justice will be done.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I again find myself saying that I understand the noble Lord's concerns. However, as I set out in my letter, I think that we have the route to satisfy those concerns. I should perhaps emphasise that we would not be expecting an appeal to be completed in 10 days, only for the intention to appeal to be lodged so that a date can be set. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue, which he also raised in Committee. I should like to reassure him if I can.
	As I indicated to the noble Lord, we intend to pilot the Schedule 2 fine enforcement measures prior to implementation in order to evaluate their effectiveness. The Bill provides that for the purpose of the pilot schemes any aspect of Schedule 2 may be modified. Consequently, we already have the power to pilot the appeals measures with a longer time period, allowing us to test whether the 10-day period is sufficient. If experience of the pilots shows that the 10-day period is insufficient, then my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has the power under Clause 31(8) to amend this provision in Schedule 2. The final scheme will then be put before Parliament for approval under the affirmative resolution procedure.
	We have used the date of the decision because the date of receipt of the decision can vary and is arguable. We think that that may be the clearest way of dealing with the matter. It may be that, following the pilots, an amendment using the Clause 31(8) procedure along the lines of Amendment No. 69 could prove the best way forward. However, we do not know whether that is the case now. Given that assurance and the fact that the provisions allow for a longer pilot period, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
	If I may, I should like to make a further point on the ability to increase interest. Although I realise that the Government have won the day on that issue, I also hope that I have already demonstrated that we do not stop thinking just because we have won. I still think that we are right. However, I should like to reassure the noble Lord that the proposed increase would take effect only if the offender refused or failed to co-operate, and would be waived if the offender contacted the court and agreed to make new payment terms. I do not think that I made that absolutely clear in responding to the earlier amendment. I hope that it gives the noble Lord some comfort in his defeat.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the noble Baroness may not be entirely surprised to hear that I am not satisfied with the answers that she has given. Experience in other circumstances where there are rigid statutory time limits has certainly convinced me that rigid time limits, particularly when they are quite short, as they are here, are a serious source of injustice. That might just as well be recognised now as when a pilot scheme has proved it. Of course it is different when there are very long time limits, as there are in the limitation of actions when one has a period of three, six or 12 years depending on the type of proceedings brought. In this case, the 10-day time period is very short.
	I do not intend to take the matter further now because, first, as I indicated beforehand, my amendment is defective. Secondly, it does not specifically raise what I think really ought to be raised by a separate amendment; namely, the problem of the 10 working days being noted from the date of the decision rather than from the date when notice of the decision is received, which is of course a much more common form of starting the time running. In those circumstances I shall withdraw Amendment No. 83 but I give notice that it is likely that I shall bring back a revised form of that amendment on Third Reading.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, in referring to Clause 31(8) procedure I may have referred to Amendment No. 67. I think that I should have referred to Amendment No. 83. If I have referred to an amendment in error, I should like to correct that for the purposes of the record.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 84 not moved.]
	Clause 32 [Designated officers and magistrates' courts]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 85 and 86:
	Page 15, line 23, leave out "(whenever passed)"
	Page 15, line 27, leave out "arrangements made by him under" and insert "a contract made by virtue of"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 36 [Disqualification of lay justices who are members of local authorities]:

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 87:
	Page 18, line 4, leave out subsection (5).

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this amendment proposes to leave out subsection (5) of Clause 36. Clause 36 provides that a lay justice who is a member of a local authority may not sit as a judge in proceedings brought by or against or on appeal from a decision of that authority or a committee or officer of that authority. That is a statement of the obvious. Clearly, any lay justice in that position should not sit in that case.
	Subsection (5) then states:
	"No act is invalidated merely because of the disqualification under this section of the person by whom it is done".
	Any justice of the peace who is a councillor must surely realise that he or she, as an interested party in the proceedings by or against the local authority of which he or she is a member, or on appeal from a decision of that authority or a committee or a member of that authority, should not be sitting as a judge. A tribunal containing such a justice of the peace cannot, I believe, be regarded as impartial or independent for the purposes of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights as incorporated by the Human Rights Act.
	It is true that in this case the Joint Committee on Human Rights accepted the explanation by the Lord Chancellor that the inclusion of the word "merely" left it open for the other party to the case to challenge a decision on Article 6 grounds. I have great respect for the Joint Committee but I believe that the Joint Committee allowed itself to be too easily persuaded. I cannot see how any case of this kind could avoid a successful challenge by a discontented other party.
	As was pointed out in Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, there is, of course, a principle that a decision of a court taken in excess of its authority is treated as valid unless and until it is challenged. The removal of subsection (5) would not, of course, affect that principle. A decision taken by a court which included a disqualified justice of the peace would stand until it was challenged. But the effect of subsection (5) is that a decision of a court is valid even if it is challenged. I believe that it conflicts with Article 6.
	To avoid the effect of subsection (5) it would be necessary to show something more than the fact that one of the members of the tribunal was disqualified. In effect, it would be necessary to show actual bias. That is as far as one can stretch the meaning of the word "merely". "Merely" must mean that it is not enough to show simply that a person sat who was disqualified. It must be necessary to go the next step and show that that person was guilty of actual bias. But under Article 6 the mere presence of an interested party as a member of the court prevents the tribunal being independent and impartial without the need to show actual bias. Therefore, I believe that there is a conflict between subsection (5) and Article 6 of the European convention. I believe that to avoid that incompatibility subsection (5) should be deleted. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: My Lords, I regard this as an important amendment. The provision is in complete contradiction with subsections (1) and (2), which are emphatic in saying that:
	"A lay justice who is a member of a local authority may not act",
	in the circumstances described. That applies to,
	"the Crown Court or a magistrates' court",
	under subsection (1), and,
	"the Common Council of the City of London",
	under subsection (2). However, subsection (5) states:
	"No act is invalidated . . . because of the disqualification . . . of the person by whom it is done".
	That seems to obliterate the effect of subsections (1) and (2). I implore the Government to give sympathetic understanding to the amendment, as it is very important.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I support this important amendment. I am certainly grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for the clarity with which he put his case. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that, if a justice of the peace who is disqualified sits, effectively the tribunal cannot be impartial for the purposes of Article 6 of the human rights convention.
	The very existence of subsection (5) surely means that a party who complains about the presence of a councillor on the tribunal would have to bring new proceedings. Those proceedings might then have to investigate the circumstances of a decision in the original proceedings, in order to discover whether the tribunal had indeed been independent and impartial, despite the presence of and perhaps participation by the disqualified local authority member. That seems unwieldy. It is expensive, time-consuming and complicated. It seems much more practical simply to knock out subsection (5).

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested, he has brought back the amendment asking for the removal of subsection (5). I listened very carefully to what he said on the previous occasion and indeed today, and also to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I have also reconsidered the matter, as I promised.
	Our conclusion is that we are content with the draft as it stands. It does not prejudice anyone's rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has agreed with that. I am very reluctant to second-guess the Joint Committee on the grounds suggested in Committee, and by implication today, by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that it is "too easily persuaded". On this occasion I find his bravery commendable if, some may think, slightly foolhardy.
	As I explained in Committee, the use of "merely" in the clause is crucial. If a local authority justice were to adjudicate where Article 6 of the convention was engaged and in circumstances where that article was violated by his so doing, that would be unlawful by reason of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. It will always be open to a party to appeal if it is felt that Article 6 bites in any instance. Clause 36(5) does not, therefore, override the requirements of impartiality imposed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights or by English common law, nor does it purport to do so.
	As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said in Committee, there is authority for the proposition that the participation of a disqualified person in the proceedings of a court renders the proceedings voidable but not void. The clause as drafted merely clarifies that decisions taken by a disqualified tribunal, where those decisions bear no prejudice from that disqualification, should not automatically fall. A listing officer or the magistrate himself, if it is realised that a magistrate is disqualified under the clause, will not let him sit in that case. If, as a result of the officer's failing to realise, a disqualified sitting goes ahead, that decision will stand unless and until it is challenged, in any event.
	It is true, of course, that the effect of subsection (5) is to place a burden on the challenger to show that the judicial decision should be declared invalid, rather than merely that the tribunal was disqualified. But I am not so sure that that is a noticeably worse alternative than doing without subsection (5). In practical terms, I am not sure that there is likely to be much difference. Unlike the noble Lord, I can conceive of interlocutory decisions where the potential interest played no part, or in the circumstances no other decision was likely—for example, standard directions, or an extension of a time limit given on good grounds.
	It seems to me burdensome, and potentially an abuse, for a challenger to delay matters more easily by demanding a re-hearing in such circumstances. Again unlike the noble Lord, I am not entirely sure that a magistrate would always have at the front of his mind circumstances that might lead to disqualification. The clause is quite wide; for example, I question whether—if as per subsection (3)(b) a joint committee or board on which the authority was represented was party to the action—it might be possible for disqualification to be overlooked, and for that disqualification of itself to have little effect on the course of the decision.
	I also want to point out that the phrase in question is a re-enactment of Section 66(6) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, as I said in Committee. Prior to that, it has been extant since the Justices of the Peace Act 1949. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, may feel that that is not an adequate reason to retain it. However, I should be very surprised to be informed that it had caused injustices or problems in all that time—if it has, I have certainly not heard of any, nor has anyone to whom I have referred the matter—or that it had affected people's faith in the criminal justice system for the worse.
	Since the advent of the Human Rights Act we are, of course, even more aware of the requirement for independence and impartiality; but they were perfectly familiar concepts to our predecessors as well, and we do not believe that the position has changed so much that subsection (5) has now become wholly unacceptable.
	I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I reiterate that we have given this matter very careful and detailed reconsideration. Having done so, I am afraid that on this occasion we have come to the same conclusion.

Lord Renton: My Lords, while I greatly admire the way in which the noble Baroness handles some very complicated matters arising on the Bill, I ask her to bear in mind that this clause has to be interpreted within its own terms. She referred, as I understand it, to the Human Rights Act as a way of explaining what the effect of subsection (5) would be. But surely, if there is to be a doubt about its interpretation—and it is clear from what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that there could be serious doubt—the Government have a duty to remove that doubt. Otherwise, injustice will be done. I do hope that the noble Baroness will think about this matter still further.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for their support. Once again, I am by no means satisfied with the Minister's answer.
	I find it impossible to interpret subsection (5) as meaning anything other than that it is not sufficient to invalidate the original decision merely to show that one of the parties who took that decision was in fact a disqualified person under Clause 36(1) and (2). If that is correct—I believe that it is—the only way in which one could invalidate the original decision is to go beyond the mere fact of disqualification and show that there was actual bias or at least grounds for believing that there might have been actual bias. That is clearly contrary to the case law involved in Article 6, which shows that the fact that an interested party sits as a member of a tribunal—I refer, for example, to the well-known case from the Channel Islands, the McGonnell case—will in itself be sufficient to invalidate the decision even if there is no evidence of actual bias in that case.
	I will consider the Minister's response and discuss the matter with one or two colleagues, who are experts—perhaps more expert than I am—in human rights law. I may well come back to the issue but, for today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 37 [Effect of Act of Settlement on existing justices of the peace]:

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 88:
	Page 18, line 26, at end insert—
	"( ) Nothing in that section shall disqualify any person from being appointed or acting as a justice of the peace."

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this amendment arises in relation to a very odd and almost inexplicable situation. Clause 37 provides that nothing in Section 3 of the Act of Settlement 1700,
	"invalidates . . . any appointment before 31st January 2002 of a justice of the peace".
	Section 3 of the Act of Settlement excludes anyone who is born outside the United Kingdom, Ireland or the Commonwealth from enjoying any office or place of trust unless they were born of English parents—"English", it should be noted; it is not sufficient to be born of Scottish or Irish parents.
	Section 3 has been excluded in relation to a considerable number of offices or places of trust. For many years, no attention has been paid to Section 3 in relation to the appointment of justices of the peace. I do not know the background to this clause but I can only assume that on or about 31st January 2002, it was decided—presumably on the basis of legal advice—that Section 3 prevented someone who was born outside the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth from being appointed a justice of the peace unless they were born of English parents.
	The effect of Clause 37 is to reinstate those who were appointed before the 31st January 2002, but to retain the exclusion for those who were not appointed before that date. That seems to me to be a completely absurd restriction. It discriminates against people on the ground of their national origin.
	I believe that at least some judges of the higher courts have been born outside the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth of non-English parents. I happen to know that the late Sir Michael Kerr, who was an extremely distinguished Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal, was born in Germany of German parents. Was he disqualified, although no one realised at the time? If he was not disqualified from holding the very high office that he held, why should someone be disqualified from being appointed as a justice of the peace?
	The purpose of Amendment No. 88 is to exclude appointments of justices of the peace altogether from the operation of Section 3 of the Act of Settlement. That seems to me to be a matter of obvious common sense and fairness. I hope that the Government will see that that is the case and will accept the amendment or agree to bring back their own amendment to the same effect. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I support the amendment. When I sat as a magistrate on the North West Surrey Bench I sat in a community where 15 per cent of the population had come to this country as primary migrants. Not only are they a part of the community, but they are a valuable part. About 11 or 12 per cent of the population of the Woking area come from one particular area in Pakistan and the rest of the overseas population come from China and Italy. We have a vibrant Sicilian culture in a part of Woking close to where I live.
	I find it extraordinary that such people should be discriminated against. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has made a cogent case. Section 3 refers to "English parents". When I looked at this I considered it in its broader sense and I was shocked that I had not realised that they were disqualified. In my area I am sure that we would welcome such people onto the magistrates' Bench because they have a valuable part to play in dispensing justice.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, while we have every sympathy with the intention of the amendment we believe that it is inappropriate for this Bill. This is an amendment to Clause 37 which has not previously been tabled. It seeks to avert the effect of Section 3 of the Act of Settlement, thus enabling my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to appoint foreign nationals as lay magistrates.
	The Government plan to introduce a new Bill, the Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill, that will initiate changes designed to alter nationality requirements for certain holders of offices under the Crown. Both the professional judiciary and the lay magistracy are included in the ambit of that Bill. If the amendment were accepted as it stands, it would have the effect of creating an anomaly between the lay magistracy and the professional judiciary to whom the nationality requirements would still apply. Furthermore, it would create presentational difficulties—if I can put it that way—for the Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill.
	We would prefer that this amendment be remitted so that we can consult with those handling the Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill and clarify whether it will cause presentational difficulties for them before addressing the meat of this amendment. Should that not be the case, we can revisit the amendment at a later date and consider how best it could be introduced into the Bill. I hope that that is a satisfactory response to the plea that has been made by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am absolutely astounded by the revelation that Sir Michael Kerr, who, as I said, was one of the most distinguished judges of the past 50 years, never actually qualified for appointment to the Bench.
	However, I hear what the noble Baroness says about this matter. I am glad that the Government intend to take the point in hand. But that could presumably take some time. Clearly, the Bill will not be passed in this Session of Parliament. No doubt it will have to fight its way onto the list for the next Session. In the absence of any undertaking, which clearly the Minister cannot give, as to the date when it is to be introduced, it seems that there is a great deal to be said for dealing with this very simple and obvious point now rather than waiting.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, my noble friend said that she would want to consider this matter again at a later stage while we are considering this Bill. What is wrong with that?

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Baroness has gone far enough. Unless there is a clear intention to bring a more far-reaching change on to the statute book, either in this Session or, as is more likely, the next Session of Parliament, I think that we should press for the amendment to be incorporated into this Bill.
	I should be interested to know how and why this point came to be raised in the first place—whose opinion it was and how the question was ever raised. However, I shall of course consider what the noble Baroness has said and whether this matter should be brought back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 40 [Power to make rulings at pre-trial hearings]:
	[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
	Schedule 3 [Pre-trial hearings in magistrates' courts]:
	[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 91:
	Page 68, leave out lines 30 to 32 and insert "—
	(a) the magistrates' court commits or sends him to the Crown Court for trial for the offence charged in the information, or
	(b) a count charging him with the offence is included in an indictment by virtue of section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this clause and schedule set out the provision for making pre-trial binding rulings in the magistrates' court. This is an important new power in the context of the integrated court structure that this Bill will introduce and the wider criminal justice reform programme, which will improve the preparation and progression of cases through the criminal justice system.
	Under this clause and schedule, a pre-trial ruling can be made by a judge or magistrates at a pre-trial hearing in a criminal case that is to be tried summarily in the magistrates' court, as to issues of substantive law and admissibility of evidence which have been identified by the parties and would benefit from early resolution.
	Since the noble Lord has not moved Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 I shall not explore the matter further unless any noble Lord indicates that that would prove helpful.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 92:
	Page 68, line 34, leave out from "section" to end of line 39 and insert "no report of matters falling within subsection (2) may be published in England and Wales."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I wish to speak to this extensive group of amendments en bloc. Schedule 3 sets out the provision for making pre-trial binding rulings in the magistrates' court. Under the schedule, a pre-trial ruling can be made by a judge or magistrate at a pre-trial hearing in a criminal case that is to be tried in the magistrates' court. Pre-trial rulings will encompass issues of substantive law and admissibility of evidence that has been identified by the parties and would benefit from early resolution.
	Amendments Nos. 92 to 100 deal with the restrictions on the reporting of pre-trial hearings in magistrates' courts. Although there is no jury in a magistrates' court, reporting restrictions have been included to ensure that defendants, or defendants in linked proceedings in the Crown Court, are protected from possible adverse publicity. Such publicity might jeopardise the fairness of the trial should the case be heard ultimately in the Crown Court.
	Amendment No. 92 deals with the territorial extent of the restrictions on reporting. The reporting restrictions in the Bill extend only to England and Wales, rather than to the entire United Kingdom, as do the restrictions in the Criminal Justice Bill. The narrower territorial extent is considered adequate for the purposes of the power that we are introducing to the magistrates' courts, which will generally be applicable to cases unlikely to attract widespread press interest.
	Amendment No. 94 allows reporting of basic factual matters and is intended to ensure that a defendant's right to a fair trial is adequately balanced against the public interest in maintaining free and open reporting of court proceedings.
	Amendments Nos. 95 to 100 would extend reporting restrictions and the offences associated with breach to cover electronic communications, including publication on the Internet. Those amendments also make the reporting restrictions in the Bill consistent with the provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill.
	Amendment No. 100 extends liability to prosecution for offences in connection with reporting committed by a corporate body to specified officers of the corporate body in question. We consider that the modern methods of electronic communication present a greater threat of the dissemination of adverse publicity, which might jeopardise the fairness of a trial. We have therefore strengthened protection against that risk by extending liability to specified officers of a corporate body. Those provisions are consistent with the measures in the Criminal Justice Bill. There are safeguards in that an offence must be proved to have been committed with the officers' consent or connivance, or to be attributable to their neglect. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I wish to ask a question as a layman, as I may have misunderstood the Minister's explanation. On the precautions that she said were being taken against the publication of information relating to pre-trial hearings, the Minister said that she did not think it a problem that something could be published in Scotland, for example, as it is unlikely to be the kind of information that people would know about, so it would not be reported there anyway. In certain headline cases, such as Soham, information on a pre-trial review might be published in Scotland. Scottish publications are readily sold throughout England; therefore, it is not just a matter of it being irrelevant whether the limited audience in Scotland could get hold of information because nobody here would hear about it. Scottish newspapers are in the House of Lords Library and are sold throughout the country. Have the Government thought through how information could be made available in a particular area? A magistrate hearing a case could see the information in a newspaper, or, if the case goes to the Crown Court, the jury there might see it.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I must confess that it is not thought that that will be a major problem or issue. The noble Baroness will know of the limits that apply when we make rules that are referable to England and Wales. She has raised an interesting issue, and I will write to her about it. I do not think that it will be a problem, but, if it is, I shall look into the matter and reply. I shall place a copy of any appropriate letter in the Library.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 93:
	Page 69, line 21, leave out from "matters" to end of line 22.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 94 to 100:
	Page 69, line 24, at end insert—
	"(6A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a report which contains only one or more of the following matters—
	(a) the identity of the court and the names of the justices;
	(b) the names, ages, home addresses and occupations of the accused and witnesses;
	(c) the offence or offences, or a summary of them, with which the accused or any of the accused are charged;
	(d) the names of counsel and solicitors in the proceedings;
	(e) where the proceedings are adjourned, the date and place to which they are adjourned;
	(f) any arrangements as to bail;
	(g) whether a right to representation funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service was granted to the accused or any of the accused.
	(6B) The addresses that may be included in a report by virtue of subsection (6A) are addresses—
	(a) at any relevant time, and
	(b) at the time of their inclusion in the publication.
	(6C) In subsection (6B), "relevant time" means a time when events giving rise to the charges to which the proceedings relate are alleged to have occurred."
	Page 69, line 26, leave out from first "on" to end of line 27 and insert "the publication of a report of any matter"
	Page 69, line 29, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
	"(a) references to publication of a report of matters falling within subsection (2)—
	(i) include references to inclusion of those matters in any speech, writing, relevant programme or other communication in whatever form which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public (and for this purpose every relevant programme is to be taken to be so addressed), but
	(ii) do not include references to inclusion of those matters in a document prepared for use in particular legal proceedings;"
	Page 69, line 37, leave out "or included in a relevant programme"
	Page 69, line 40, leave out "written"
	Page 69, line 43, leave out paragraph (b)
	Page 70, line 4, at end insert—
	"( ) in the case of any other publication, any person publishing it.
	(1A) If an offence under this section committed by a body corporate is proved—
	(a) to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or
	(b) to be attributable to any neglect on the part of,
	an officer, the officer as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
	(1B) In subsection (1A), "officer" means a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity.
	(1C) If the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, "director" in subsection (1B) means a member of that body."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
	Clause 41 [Power to transfer criminal cases]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 102:
	Page 19, line 35, leave out "again."" and insert "again.
	(4) The power of the court under this section to transfer any matter must be exercised in accordance with any directions given under section 25(2) of the Courts Act 2003.""
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 43 [Power to transfer civil proceedings (other than family proceedings)]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 103:
	Page 20, line 22, leave out "proceedings."" and insert "proceedings.
	(4) The power of the court under this section to transfer a hearing must be exercised in accordance with any directions given under section 25(2) of the Courts Act 2003.""
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 46 [Court security officers]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 104:
	Page 22, line 18, leave out "arrangements made by him under" and insert "a contract made by virtue of"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: moved Amendment No. 105:
	Page 22, line 19, at end insert—
	"(1A) Anyone appointed or designated under subsection (1) must be a person who has been subject to and passed a police check."

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, we now move to consider some the issues that we dealt with in Committee relating to court security officers. I shall speak only to Amendment No. 105, as my noble friend Lord Swinfen wishes to speak to Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 in their place on the Marshalled List.
	Amendment No. 105 would insert a provision to ensure that anyone appointed or designated as a court security officer must be,
	"a person who has been subject to and passed a police check".
	In Committee, we tabled an amendment to probe the nature of the conditions that will have to be met before a person can be appointed as a court security officer. I recall that, although the Minister said that it would be unhelpful to state specifically in the Bill exactly what qualities would be required for the role, he also said:
	"The role carries significant responsibility, so it is crucial that a certain standard should be met before a person can become a court security officer".
	In particular, the noble Lord stated:
	"it is envisaged that there will be a full criminal records check to make sure that applicants are of good character".—[Official Report, 11/2/03; col. 592.]
	Like other noble Lords, I have reflected on the Minister's words and have taken advice elsewhere. The Minister will be aware that there are now tighter controls on private security staff, wheel clampers, bouncers and so on. The Security Industry Authority regulates the industry and makes it compulsory to obtain a licence. Those who wish to obtain a licence must prove that they have had no involvement in any sort in crime for up to five years.
	Exactly what checks on applicants for the position of court security officer will the Minister commit the Government to? The Law Society has expressed its concern on this matter and has stated that,
	"where any civilian exercises powers usually only exercised by the police, it is important to ensure that these powers are properly regulated and that those exercising them are accountable".
	It would be helpful if the Minister would clarify whether court security officers will come under the bracket of private security staff. If not, will they face the same checks as those who come under that category? In that context, I beg to move.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, I have no doubt that in a moment or two my noble friend the Minister will give the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the reassurances that he seeks. But when I looked at the amendment and Clause 46(2) to which he referred, I saw no case for the amendment. Clause 46(2) refers to regulations to provide the conditions to be met before anyone can be designated a court security officer. What case can there be for particularising one condition and setting it forth in the Bill when other conditions are to be set out in regulations? I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has made a case for that. I suppose that he is probing further than at the earlier stage in order to get the Minister to talk more about it. If that is the case, that is splendid, but there really is no case for having this on the face of the Bill.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like to confirm what my noble friend Lord Hunt said. I shall speak to my two amendments separately and not conjoined with this one.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I was intending to deal with both Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 because they are grouped together.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, Amendment No. 106 is paving to Amendment No. 107.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in that case I shall try to deal with just Amendment No. 105. Clause 46 deals with the appointment and designation of court security officers. Under the current system of court security, the only courts in which there is statutory provision for a court security officer are the magistrates' courts. Although there is some security provided in other courts, as I am sure noble Lords will appreciate, the standard and rigour vary considerably and the number of security-related incidents in courts is rising. As we discussed in Committee, this is an issue of concern. For that reason the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made a commitment to improve court security across the system. The creation of the role of court security officer should begin to equalise the security provisions across all courts and combat the rise in incidents involving violence or threatened violence.
	The proposition moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is to add to the Bill that anyone appointed or designated by the Lord Chancellor as a court security officer must first have been subject to and passed a "police check". I presume that this is meant in the sense of a check on an individual's criminal record, although that is not made clear in the amendment. The Government understand the importance of ensuring that court security officers have passed appropriate background security checks prior to designation or appointment. We are grateful to the noble Lord for raising this very important point.
	The noble Lord was right to remind me of my words in Committee. But I am advised that access is limited to police records and that no routine procedures exist by which an external party can instigate a "police security check" of the nature envisaged by the noble Lord. Where checks are carried out, they tend to be on an occasional basis as a result of a reciprocal agreement generally between the police and the local court managers. To require the police to carry out such checks for every person designated or appointed would be very resource intensive for the police. We argue that it could seriously detract from their other important statutory duties.
	However, prior to appointment, several different methods of carrying out background checks can be used. The department is aiming to use the basic disclosure service offered by the Criminal Records Bureau which, as noble Lords know, was recently established, but which currently and famously is working on its backlog. Once that service becomes available, it will provide a criminal record check incorporating several levels of disclosure for different types of employment. Indeed, that is the basis on which it has been established.
	In the meantime, the Lord Chancellor's Department carries out checks on all service contractors and court service staff, including in-house security guards. All employees and contractors must be subject to the basic check which verifies the identity of the person concerned. The counter-terrorist check must be carried out for all first and second tier Crown Courts, although in practice it is carried out for all courts. It includes both a criminal record check and verification with the security services. In addition, the two security companies with which the Court Service works are affiliated to the British Security Industry Association and, as a consequence, are required to complete a 10-year employment history for all employees, together with a formal declaration of criminal records. Those background investigations are extensive.
	I hope it will be apparent that the current checks undertaken by the Lord Chancellor's Department in relation to all security staff go some way beyond the level of detail provided by occasional police checks. Because of the importance of the issue raised by the noble Lord, this regime will continue and it will certainly be the case when the current procedures give way to access to the Criminal Records Bureau once the service is fully operational.
	I hope that my detailed explanation, along with a clear statement that we are going well beyond what was envisaged by the noble Lord, will enable him to feel confident about withdrawing his amendment.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, not only am I confident, I am certain that I shall be following the right course in withdrawing the amendment. The Minister has answered not only the points I raised, but he has also responded very effectively to the rather curious intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I sought to follow the traditional course, which is to probe and check on such an important area as the need to ensure that court security staff are subject to adequate checks. The Minister has now given me the assurances I sought. Therefore I have pleasure in withdrawing my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Swinfen: moved Amendment No. 106:
	Page 22, line 23, at end insert "; and
	(c) the procedure to be followed by court security staff in the discharge of their functions"

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 106, I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 107. Clause 46(2) enables the Lord Chancellor, by regulation, to make provision for court security officers to be properly trained, and to set out the conditions to be met before a person may become a court security officer. Amendment No. 106 would enable the Lord Chancellor, by regulation, to lay down the procedure to be followed by court security staff in the discharge of their functions. This would include their powers of search.
	Amendment No. 107, if accepted, would remove from the Bill the limitations on a search included in Clause 47(2). As the House knows, we live in an age of fast-moving and rapidly changing terrorist tactics. As the Bill is drafted, it would require another Act of Parliament to change court security officers' powers of search. That is not something that can usually be done in a hurry, in particular if such a change was needed when Parliament was in Recess.
	The two amendments are designed to give the Lord Chancellor much greater and much-needed flexibility in changing the powers of search to meet new conditions as and when they arise. If the amendments are accepted, Amendment No. 107 will override Amendment No. 108, tabled in the name of the Lord Chancellor which, in my view and with great respect, does little to improve the Bill. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Clause 46(2) gives the Lord Chancellor a power to make regulations concerning training courses to be completed by court security officers and the conditions to be met before a person may be designated as such. Effective training is a crucial part of effective court security. The regulation-making power will ensure that this is provided for court security officers in England and Wales. In addition, the power to make regulations regarding conditions to be met prior to appointment or designation will ensure that all officers meet a satisfactory minimum acceptable standard of competence, background and qualities.
	The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, seeks to give the Lord Chancellor an additional power to make regulations providing for the procedure to be followed by court security staff in the discharge of their functions. The Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring consistency in the procedures followed by court security staff and we are grateful to the noble Lord for raising this important point. However, for several reasons, the Government consider that in this instance regulations are an inappropriate vehicle for dealing with the procedure to be followed by court security officers in the discharge of their functions.
	Changes in training and conditions of employment are different from procedural change. The former are matters that evolve steadily, allowing plenty of time for necessary alterations to be identified and for the correct mechanisms to be put in place to facilitate change. Accordingly, these areas are suitable to be dealt with by regulations, particularly as, being subject to the parliamentary process, amending regulations can take time. Conversely, procedural matters often need to be varied rapidly in response to a particular event or situation—for example, a new terrorist threat—and so containing prescribing procedure in regulations is likely to prove inflexible.
	Some issues that may fall under the umbrella of "procedural matters" may also be connected with training. As I have said, formulating regulations can be time-consuming and resource intensive, and so the Government are keen to avoid duplication wherever possible.
	Publishing the procedure to be followed by court security staff could also compromise security. The public would have access to regulations that could highlight information through which to exploit the system.
	The proposed amendment refers to "court security staff" rather than to "court security officers". This is at odds with the remainder of Part 4 of the Bill, which refers throughout to "court security officers".
	The Government appreciate the need for clear, defined procedure relating to the discharge of court security officers' powers, which should be implemented uniformly across all courts. However, it is considered that regulations are not the appropriate mechanism for ensuring this. It is preferable for these procedures to be laid down through the production of internal security bulletins and guidance notes. This will be more flexible.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I support my noble friend. I am a little concerned about the Minister's reliance on the time-consuming nature and cost of drafting these regulations. My noble friend stressed the importance of the procedures to be followed. Recent terrorist activity has indicated that the courts could well be targets—the Minister has assured the House in the past that the authorities are aware of this—but a public debate of the procedures to be followed need not touch on secret matters which should be kept from the public. This would enable the House and another place to discuss some of the serious issues arising from the threat now posed to society, and especially to our courts.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a perfectly respectable point. No one is suggesting that there should not be other opportunities for such a debate to take place. However, the mechanism suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is time consuming and is not perhaps flexible enough to deal with an urgent situation that may arise from time to time.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I realise that the drafting of regulations can take time, but the essence of my argument on both amendments is that the procedure is being laid down in a Bill. It will require an Act of Parliament to pass through both Houses, with three opportunities in this place and two in another place to amend it. Regulations can be drafted fairly quickly and, in some instances, can be brought into effect before their due date.
	It may not be appropriate to this debate, but in the past we have dealt with various orders relating to shellfish and shellfish poisoning that were brought into effect on the day that they were laid before Parliament as an important safety measure. We are discussing a safety matter for the public, the court officials, the court staff and anyone attending court.
	In Committee I mentioned the long delay in changing the procedure for security in courts. The noble Lord will recall that that is the only point that I have raised on the Bill. In my view, it is extremely unwise to state in a Bill what a security officer may or may not do. We live in a very fast-moving age compared with the days of the spear and the bow and arrow in which the noble Lord seems to be stuck. We live in an age of electronic devices that can set off explosives within split seconds. We need to be a great deal more flexible. I do not believe that the noble Lord is addressing the problem.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in some senses, the noble Lord appears to be agreeing with me. We are seeking to retain that flexibility so that we can be more responsive. That is why we believe it will be preferable for the procedures to be laid down through the production of internal security bulletins and guidance notes. In our view, the latter approach is more flexible than the regulations approach that the noble Lord is recommending. It also avoids the prospect of compromising security—a concern that I believe the noble Lord shares—while ensuring clarity and uniformity of procedure. I invite the noble Lord to reconsider his position on that amendment.
	Amendment No. 107 would remove Clause 47(2). The subsection limits a court security officer's power of search by authorising the officer to require the removal of only,
	"a coat, jacket, gloves or hat".
	This reflects a justified concern, expressed at great length in Committee, to ensure that the security provisions included in the Bill are sufficient to protect court users. We are most grateful to noble Lords for raising this point, not just today but also on previous occasions.
	The Government gave an undertaking to consider the wording of the subsection to ensure that it is adequate. This has been done with Amendment No. 108. Although the conclusion remains that subsection (2) should be retained, we have accepted that the wording needs to be changed. The Government consider that the combined "search on entry" measures and procedures that will be in place will be adequate to deal with the level of terrorist threat faced by court premises.
	On entering the Royal Courts of Justice and all Crown Court buildings, a person must pass through a metal detection arch. If that is activated, the court security officer will then use a metal detection wand to identify more precisely where the metal is located. Both the metal detection arch and the wand will pick up metallic elements in wires and timing devices, or power sources attached to explosives that may be strapped to the body of a terrorist.
	The provisions in the Bill do not prevent a non-intimate physical search in the manner of a frisk by airport security officers if, for instance, this should prove necessary to identify the nature of an object detected by the wand. Combined with the removal of outer clothes, as permitted under subsection (2), this will be sufficient for court security officers to identify the presence of explosives strapped closely to the body. If a court security officer remains in doubt as to the intentions of a person, he may either exclude the person from the court building or request the presence of a police officer with the powers to conduct a more intimate search. The Government consider that the combination of these factors is sufficient to combat the current level of terrorist threats posed to the courts.
	Subsection (2) provides a restriction on the power of search that is akin to restrictions on similar powers in other Acts. Importantly, it reflects the position of court security officers in Northern Ireland, as contained in Section 80(2) of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. It should be noted that this Act was passed after the atrocity of 11th September 2001, when terrorism fears were at their height. With this in mind, it would be hard to justify giving court security officers in England and Wales an unfettered power of search that would be substantially wider than that of their Northern Ireland counterparts.
	Significantly, the Terrorism Act itself also limits an authorised constable's powers of search in public to requesting the removal of an outer coat, headgear, gloves, jacket and footwear.
	As I have mentioned, the Government have tabled an amendment to subsection (2) to widen it to include footwear. Particular account was taken of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that subsection (2) is ethnocentric. In recognition of this, it is proposed that the word "hat" be replaced with the term "headgear". It is appreciated that the removal of certain items may be subject to religious guidelines, and guidance will be produced to ensure that situations are handled with the appropriate sensitivity.
	We are grateful to those who have raised an important consideration in this debate and appreciate the concerns by which they were prompted.
	I think Amendment No. 109 is in this group—no, we have not got there yet. In that case, I think that deals with the amendments that have been raised so far.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I think the noble Lord may have been misled by the grouping and has therefore taken the amendments in numerical order rather than in the order of thought. He may have forgotten what was said or perhaps he did not pay sufficient attention to what was said by those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and, indeed, behind him. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, supported me in Committee.
	The Minister has not satisfied me, and I should like to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 106) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 72.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 47 [Powers of search]:
	[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 108:
	Page 22, line 32, leave out "gloves or hat" and insert "headgear, gloves or footwear"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: moved Amendment No. 109:
	Page 22, line 36, at end insert—
	"(4) Where a court security officer reasonably believes that a more thorough search is required arrangements should be made for this to take place in private."

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, we now move to Amendment No. 109 which would insert a provision, where a more thorough search is required, to allow the court security officer to make arrangements for that to take place in private. This debate gives noble Lords the opportunity to review some of the data collection which the Minister has kindly made available. This data covers 68 per cent of the Crown Courts in England and Wales. It discloses that 22,500 items were confiscated during searches which began in May 2002 for the south- eastern, northern and midland regions. That figure is broken down as follows: 85.3 per cent of the items were knives; 14.5 per cent were tools, including items such as screwdrivers; and 0.17 per cent were firearms. It is rather disquieting to realise that the knives ranged from penknives to samurai swords. That reminds us of the dangers that we face from the increasing threat from terrorism as we discuss changes in the security arrangements. I was also concerned to hear from the Minister that anecdotal evidence from courts managers and security guards suggested that incidents requiring a physical intervention were increasing.
	I move this amendment to press the Government for reassurance that court security officers will not just conduct a superficial search of those entering court buildings. They should be able to carry out a full search if they believe that it is necessary in the interests of the safety of the court. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have been over much of the ground discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in previous exchanges. We are grateful to the noble Lord for returning to the matter as it enables the Government to make plain the thorough approach which we intend to be adopted by court security services.
	The noble Lord's amendment would require that arrangements should be made for "more thorough" and apparently intimate searches to take place in private. It is an entirely proper amendment. I understand the sentiment and strength of feeling behind it. The amendment would give the court security officers a more comprehensive power of search without allowing them to carry out more intimate searches.
	But if the amendment proposing the removal of all restrictions on a court security officer's powers of search were to be accepted, the proposed amendment requiring more thorough searches to take place in private would be of some benefit, although, as currently drafted, and particularly if subsection (2) were to be removed, it is unclear how much more thorough the search would be. For the reasons I gave when I addressed Amendment No. 107, the Government consider it appropriate and justified to retain that restriction.
	In summary, these reasons are centred on the fact that we consider the present powers to be adequate to deal with the threat that they are designed to address. We also acknowledge the need for the Bill to be consistent with the limitations on similar powers of search in other legislation. Consideration is given to Article 8 of the convention which addresses the right to respect for private life.
	With that in mind, the amendment proposing more thorough searches by court security officers is in our view unnecessary as the officers will not have the power to carry out such searches. Where a court security officer considers that a more intimate search is necessary, he or she will have to request the attendance of a police officer who will then carry out that search. We believe that that is a more appropriate way of dealing with the matter although I entirely understand why the noble Lord sought to have the provision put in place.
	The noble Lord referred to statistics, some of which I believe that we discussed in Committee. Recent statistics have introduced a more in-depth analysis of the knives that were discovered. Nearly all were small knives under three inches; that is, penknives or similar, and would have been immediately detected by the metal detection equipment. We are confident that the security arches that we have in place and, no doubt, the wonderful waving wands, will do the job. We are very mindful of the threats that even such small weapons could pose to staff, members of the public and members of the judiciary. We take the issue seriously, and think that we have the balance of measures and the technology right. However, we will review the matter from time to time and monitor it very carefully.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his understanding, and am very pleased to hear that steps are being taken to refine the figures. I understand that it is now a requirement that all the regions collect the information to which we have referred, which is very reassuring. I am also grateful to him for clarifying the way in which the more detailed searches will be carried out. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 48 [Powers to exclude, remove or restrain persons]:

Lord Hunt of Wirral: moved Amendment No. 110:
	Page 23, line 17, at end insert—
	"( ) The Lord Chancellor shall ensure that sufficient resources are allocated in order to discharge the functions in subsections (2) and (3)."

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, nowhere in the Bill can I find a commitment from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that he will provide adequate resources to enable security officers to carry out their duty. That is why I tabled the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord proposes a clearly understandable addition to the Bill requiring the Lord Chancellor to ensure that sufficient resources are allocated for a court security officer to carry out his powers of exclusion, removal or restraint under Clause 48. However, it should be borne in mind that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is committed to improving court security and, even without significant additional funding or other resources, the Bill will do that. The provisions will provide court security officers in all courts with significant, effective and uniform powers, and also extensive training to enable them to exercise their powers safely, efficiently and lawfully.
	It is anticipated that the number of court security officers in place will remain at least the same after the implementation of the Bill. Funding is available to develop the necessary training programmes, guidance notes and other matters that need to be in place prior to the start-up of the new system. That will ensure that the new security provisions will be more effective even without funding for additional court security officers. From that point of view, I respectfully suggest that the amendment is unnecessary. I am afraid that it is practically unworkable. I am glad to see that the noble Lord is content for me to dispense with explaining why.
	Of course, the Government accept that funding is the key to the pace and scope of improvement in security in the courts. However, security remains high on the agenda of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and the importance of planning for improvement remains. I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for raising the important point but, for the reasons that I have given, the amendment is inappropriate for inclusion in the Bill. I therefore invite him to withdraw it.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I accept the noble Baroness's invitation. I am grateful to her for the reassurances that she has given, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 54 [Functions of inspectors]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 111:
	Page 25, line 18, at end insert "including information technology services"

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the amendment would ensure that one of the functions of the inspectors of court administration would be to inspect and report to the Lord Chancellor on IT systems.
	Information technology systems are becoming increasingly important throughout the justice world. They are already vital to the business world, but justice is catching up. They are important for the smooth and efficient running of the court system, and provide an effective way of ensuring that information is stored correctly and available when needed. When the fines system is set up, the matter will be even more important, as it will be one not only of sharing information on cases as they go through, but of tracking. In this modern age, it is essential to have an up-to-date and cost-effective IT system throughout the Lord Chancellor's Department, so that information can be shared electronically with other courts, and to enable the transfer of electronic information to other enforcement agencies.
	Earlier, the Minister explained the Government's thoughts as regards extending penalties in relation to fines, and she referred to benefit payments. The Benefits Agency, very early on, went through a rather painful but ultimately successful exercise in transferring its information systems to IT. Its system is up and ready and it is important that the system in the Lord Chancellor's Department—if it is to interact with the agency on fines collection enforcement—should be compliant.
	We on these Benches believe that it is necessary for the inspectors to monitor such an essential system, particularly in the light of the current IT systems failures within the Lord Chancellor's Department. I referred to the matter in relation to a different kind of amendment in Committee.
	The system which is currently in place and would have to be monitored was set up under the private finance initiative with ICL—now known as Fujitsu Services—is called "Libra". The project has already cost the taxpayer twice the estimated cost. It is now costing about £390 million.
	I raised a rather different amendment in Committee. Since my remarks about IT then, the National Audit Office has issued its report, New IT systems for Magistrates' Courts: the Libra project, which I have in front of me. The report concludes that, despite 20 years of throwing money at courts—I recognise that this goes back beyond 1997 but it must be said that that report seems to apportion blame on this occasion only post-1997—there is still no working system of IT within them and that the Lord Chancellor's Department has made "some truly basic mistakes".
	We understand that it is extremely difficult to set up IT systems in any event, but particularly within the justice system; and it is costly. It is vital, therefore, that we should be assured that, in future, it will be the task of the inspector within the unified courts administration, as part of his or her job, not only to report on the setting up of these systems and on their implementation and effectiveness, but to make recommendations as to how they might be better developed in the future.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to give assurances about the role of the inspector under the new UCA and an indication of the Government's response to the report by the National Audit Office. I do not expect her to give a detailed response, but to say how the Government have taken the report into account in drafting the Bill and in terms of how its provisions will be taken forward. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as always, I have listened with great interest to the arguments advanced by the noble Baroness in support of the amendment. However, I believe that it is unnecessary.
	Noble Lords will undoubtedly recall that during the debate on 20th January on Amendment No. 3 (at cols. 532–536 of the Official Report) I explained that "services" included information technology services, and an amendment identical to this one standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, was subsequently withdrawn.
	Clause 54 places a duty on the inspectors to inspect and report to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on the system that supports the carrying on of the business of those courts listed in Clause 54(2)—currently, the Crown Court, county courts and magistrates' courts—and the service provided for those same courts. Those services include, among others, information technology, security and catering. The noble Baroness rightly said that information technology is playing an increasing role in the operation of courts. One example is that of video conferencing, which I hope will mean that increasingly we can make real progress without having to transfer prisoners inappropriately backwards and forwards.
	It is our intention that all of those services, including information technology services, will be subject to inspection. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness feels that her amendment is not necessary and that she will withdraw it.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response and her assurances that the inspector of court administration will indeed report on IT services. I took from her remarks a caution for myself: I shall not send her some of my more well-meaning arrangements about withdrawing amendments in future. I shall have to consider the implications of that. Her reference to the fact that a similar amendment in Committee, which stood in the names of my noble friends Lord Kingsland and Lady Seccombe, who is in her place, had been withdrawn rather implied that it had been withdrawn because we were satisfied with the answer that was given to Amendments Nos. 3 and 15. I believe that Amendment No. 15 was grouped with Amendment No. 3 on that occasion. That was not the case. We withdrew that amendment because the Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, had become increasingly exercised about the time that we were taking that evening. In a spirit of good humour I offered to withdraw the amendment. Gosh, I must think about that in future!

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not want to discourage the noble Baroness from so doing but usually she kindly indicates when she will return to an amendment that she is withdrawing. I rather thought that that amendment had been withdrawn in that spirit. If I misunderstood her, I withdraw any such comments; I should hate to discourage her from continuing along her happy path in terms of the way in which we co-operate on this and other Bills.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, our happy paths will continue, not necessarily in parallel lines or even overlapping; but we will carry on our merry way. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 56 [Rights of entry and inspection]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 112 and 113:
	Page 26, line 15, leave out "arrangements made by the Lord Chancellor under" and insert "a contract made by the Lord Chancellor by virtue of"
	Page 26, line 20, leave out "arrangements made by the Lord Chancellor under" and insert "a contract made by the Lord Chancellor by virtue of"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 59 [Power to alter judicial titles]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 114:
	Page 28, line 28, leave out "or repealing any enactment (whenever passed)" and insert ", repealing or revoking any enactment"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 4 [Further functions conferred on District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 115:
	Page 70, line 33, leave out "sitting as a judge of the Crown Court"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this and the next two minor amendments make minor changes to statutory references to the functions in Schedule 4. They are all technical amendments and delete unnecessary words, which I am sure will delight noble Lords. They also clarify the drafting and make the legislation easier to follow. That is an unarguable case. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 116 and 117:
	Page 71, line 7, at end insert—

""Interpretation".

Page 71, line 17, leave out paragraph 9 and insert—
	"9 In Schedule 5 (terrorist investigations: information)—
	(a) in paragraphs 5(1) and (5), 6(1), 10(1), 11(1), 12(1) and (2) and 13(1), after "Circuit judge" insert "or a District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)", and
	(b) in paragraphs 5(4)(a) and 7(1)(b), after "Circuit judge" insert "or the District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)"."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Literature: Removal of Barriers

Lord Addington: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what measures are being taken to remove all barriers to literature for those who have difficulties accessing books in traditional print formats.
	My Lords, this Question was inspired by a Starred Question that was debated a while ago. The Government were asked about the imposition of a higher VAT rating on audio books than on ordinary literature. I cannot remember the exact details of the exchange but I do recall that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who wears many hats—many of them very comfortably—found himself rather struggling with his brief. When I asked him whether he regarded the extra VAT payments on audio books as a tax on literature, he replied along the lines that audio books are not just for disabled people but that he enjoys them as well. That was a rather odd answer because literature in our society, as in most, defines one's intellectual place. It is a status symbol, not simply a tool. It allows one to join the top table.
	Of all the noble Lords who have been kind enough to agree to take part in this debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, sits among us as a bright and shining light. She represents those who provide us, through their writing, with a commonality of interest and a point of intellectual exchange. If she writes another book I wonder how gently she will treat noble Lords.
	Literature is denied to many people for many different reasons. Primarily those who experience great difficulties with reading fall into two groups. There are those who have problems with literacy generally; that is understanding symbols on a screen or on a page, an aspect that concerns me as I am dyslexic. I include in that group those who have had interrupted schooling. Such people are excluded from literature, although there are ways around the problem. There are also those who have visual problems and therefore have physical difficulties in seeing what is on a page or a screen and so are unable to interpret it. We need to address both groups as millions of people are affected. Neither group should be excluded from such a major input.
	Books are a sign by which we define ourselves intellectually. To be well read and to be familiar with books is probably the greatest sign of an intellectually competent person in our society. That is a historical fact. With my noble friend Lord Russell in the Chamber I feel slightly nervous about saying anything of a historical nature, but I hope that he will not dispute what I am about to say. When the printing press and the production of paper came together to produce a book, the opportunity to spread information more widely than ever before was created. That has fundamentally changed the way in which society operates and we have embraced that totally. Thus anything we do that stops that exchange of information must be regarded with horror because it has allowed intellectual matters to be shared among everyone.
	Once that technical innovation came about, no longer was knowledge confined to a small group of people, but became easily accessible. The spread of ideas and the changes in our society that were made possible through the technology have been massive. It has changed society probably more fundamentally than anything else.
	Those who have problems seeing what is on a page and those who have problems in interpreting the written symbols in the past have been excluded from that vast expansion. We now have the technical ability to change that or to reduce its impact. The most glaring example is audio books. The removal of VAT on them would mean that cassettes, disks and so on can become available to everyone on even terms. Production costs will be slightly different, but the difference will not be that great. It will mean that everyone can join in this interchange of information and that we shall have a chance to go forward. If the Government refuse to do that, they will effectively be helping to exclude groups on which they spend vast amounts of money and time trying to bring into the literate world.
	We are surrounded by a barrage of adverts which state that, "You must learn to read. You must become literate." In one of the latest campaigns featuring gremlins, there is the person who is embarrassed at a counter because he cannot read. However, that is only a small part of what being illiterate means to someone. It is not the functional ability to write one's name and tick the right boxes; it is the ability to join in the interchange of information in our society. It means that one can actually turn around to someone and say, "Yes, I shall check up on that. I will return to it and read it", and not need to have a person explain the issue to you. If we can manage to get more information on to tape and other forms of electronic recording, we shall enable people to join in more fully in our society.
	In relation to people with a visual-based problem, the variety of changes that have already taken place are encouraging. We must congratulate the Government on having passed the Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act. But, as I am always saying to the Government, the fact that they have done more or better things than previous governments is right because that is where they are at this point in the historical process. They must do more.
	I wonder whether the Bill dealing with disabled people will include such items as the launch of a new reading initiative or proper co-ordination of accessible textbooks for children in schools. There are still problems despite the Government's legislation. Making sure that there is an audio textbook in basic subjects would, I should have thought, sit rather well with many other pieces of legislation we have passed; for example, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act.
	The Government should be expected to introduce initiatives so that those people who merely have slight problems with vision, compared with those people who have severe problems, should not be excluded any more. We must make sure that there is better access to their established way of receiving information. Large print, Braille and other forms of accessible printing should be encouraged at every level.
	If we do not start to address these problems we shall build on a historical problem. It is the historical inequality where a whole group of people are excluded from the major form of intellectual life of our nation—the "them and us" idea writ large—by not transferring as much literature as possible to an audio format. We can all probably appreciate the reverse of that, which is how many schoolchildren are put off the theatre for X number of years by having to read a play badly.
	If we can create a format so that people can appreciate what is going on and the magic that can be created by the writer—to access that world and that store of information—we will remove one of the major social barriers in our society to those with visual and, indeed, degenerative problems. We will stop a group of people being excluded, or at least being greatly restricted, from a main area of activity, which is the norm. Unless the Government start to take a more proactive stand on the matter and do things such as slightly change their tax base in order to enable people to join in, they will restrict the activity and possibly the economic capacity of large sections of our society. Making greater information and literature available will encourage people to become better members of our society and will help them in everything from communication to job prospects.
	I hope that, at the end of the debate, we will hear of a series of positive initiatives by the Government and some philosophy. It is always nice to hear, not just a list of what we will do, but why we are going to do it.

Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on introducing this important subject in the form of an Unstarred Question. I only regret that I did not think of doing so myself. In speaking on the subject of accessible literature for the visually impaired, I declare an interest as an author of fiction all of whose books appear as audio books. I shall try not to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has said, but it is such an important subject that it will not matter much if I do. We should all know, and think, about this subject.
	The majority of people think of audio books as useful for their entertainment on long car drives. They forget, or have never considered, that audio books are the sole gateway to literature for many thousands. The blind and partially sighted, and patients recovering from severe injury or with physical disabilities, may be dependent on audio books. Also among them are those unable to hold conventional books and people with brain tumours who have difficulty focusing on a printed page. It is an irony that for those severely disadvantaged men, women and children—the very people for whom books should be readily and cheaply available—access to reading costs more than for the fully-sighted and the non-disabled.
	Audio books can sometimes be twice as expensive as printed paper versions. Young, visually impaired Harry Potter fans are indignant at having to pay, in some cases, seven times more for a CD or cassette version than sighted children pay for the hardback or paperback. The most recent Harry Potter book, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, costs £76.99 on audio CD as against £10.49 for the hardback, and £42.49 on audio cassette as against £5.59 for the paperback. That is because audio books attract the full rate of VAT, which is 17.5 per cent, while printed books are—as they should be—zero-rated.
	Why is this? Her Majesty's Customs and Excise classes audio books as "performance" rather than books. When VAT was introduced to the United Kingdom in 1973, books, newspapers and related items were zero-rated because it was thought inappropriate to impose a tax on literature. At that time, the audio book industry was virtually non-existent, and apparently no one foresaw how it would gather momentum. Elderly and middle-aged people, born blind or late afflicted by sight damage, could never have imagined, when they were young, that such a solace, comfort and boundless resource would one day be available to them in the form of the recorded work of their favourite writers—not only permanently popular fiction and the best sellers of the day, but time-honoured world literature. We should consider particularly those who, while they had the faculty of sight, were great readers, unable to imagine existence without something to read. Audio books are a lifeline to such people, amounting to a reason for living for many.
	To put oneself in another's shoes is often the best imaginative feat in attempting to understand someone's plight. I can picture how it would be for me, as someone who reads for some hours every day, if I were deprived of reading matter. If the rules governing VAT were rewritten now, when audio books are the mainstay of the blind and partially sighted, making the difference between misery and contentment, no right-thinking, compassionate person who has given the matter consideration would argue for the retention of such a tax.
	If audio books were zero-rated, a standard two-cassette audio book pack currently selling at £9.99 would retail at £8.49—closer to the price of the paperback version of the same book. A six-cassette pack, costing £19.99 at present, would sell at £16.99 and would, therefore, be nearer in price to a hardback book. The current difference in price between audio and print books is discriminatory. In fact, it is a classic example of discrimination against the incapacitated. It penalises those who have no option but to read the audio version. It is also illogical. The content of published work is the same, whether presented in print, in Braille, on a screen via computer disc or by means of a voice recording.
	Commercially and—I might say—intellectually, zero-rating on audio books would stimulate the audio book market so that a wider range of reading materials would become available to people unable to read printed books. At present, only about 2 per cent of titles appear in recorded form each year. If Her Majesty's Government will acknowledge that the present system is unfair, it should be possible for a solution to be found.
	In answer to a Starred Question that I asked a year ago, my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said that the exemption that we already had from VAT on books and newspapers, children's clothes, food and public transport fares would be put at risk by attempting to secure it for audio books. I am afraid that I did not understand that reasoning then, and I do not now. Surely, we are not going to fall into the trap of having VAT suddenly slapped on food and fares because we seek exemption for recorded reading matter. Surely, Her Majesty's Government could make a strong case to the European Union for zero-rating in that one instance, without jeopardising the status of printed works.

Lord Sandberg: My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Addington on seeking the debate and speaking so eloquently on the subject, as he always does.
	I must declare an interest. A couple of years ago, I suddenly developed macular degeneration. I had not realised that it was such a problem. My happiness in life has certainly been made difficult by it. About 2 million people in this country have a sight problem. Four out of five sufferers are aged more than 65—again, I must declare an interest, sadly—and most of them suffer from macular degeneration.
	Most literary and other works produced in accessible form for people such as ourselves are produced by voluntary sector organisations such as the Royal National Institute of the Blind, the National Library for the Blind and the Calibre cassette library, another voluntary organisation that does great work. Recently, we passed legislation to remove the requirement to seek copyright clearance. That has helped us considerably. In the past, that requirement delayed the production of accessible copies of books. Again, that progress is due mostly to the voluntary sector.
	A new service from the National Library for the Blind and RNIB, called Reveal, is to be launched in June. It has received start-up funding from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and it will make it much easier for people with sight problems to locate copies of accessible books. It will be possible to access a database containing a record of every accessible publication. I hope that we can receive an assurance from the Minister today that this vital service will continue to receive not only the blessing of the Government but their financial backing.
	These are positives. However, there are other issues which are not so positive to which I should like to refer. Last year the RNIB and others called for a major new access to reading fund, to which a range of providers could apply to expand provision of books in accessible formats. Precious little financial support has been provided by the UK Government—in stark contrast to the more generous public funding in the USA and many other countries.
	The Government are apparently resisting this demand. I should like the Minister to set out what action the Government are taking to encourage the publishing industry to publish more works in accessible formats. There would, for example, be a huge market for books in clear print which would benefit 85 per cent of people with vision problems. The market for audio books, previously mentioned, is also significant and growing among people with sight problems and other print disabilities. Yet there is no financial or other incentive to the industry to make these possible.
	Public libraries could and should play a stronger role in opening up literature to people with sight problems. They should be encouraged to build their own stocks of audio and large-print books and increase access to literature for those who cannot read standard print. Yet the Government's latest strategic review of libraries, entitled, A Framework for the Future, fails to identify this as a strategic objective. Indeed, it fails even to mention access for people with disabilities. This serious omission must be made good.
	The barriers to literature for those with sight problems and other disabilities are all surmountable. It is high time for a concerted effort by government and the publishing industry, who need Government incentives to level the playing field for people with sight problems who want to access literary works but cannot.

Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for having secured this debate and for his untiring efforts in bringing this important subject to the attention of the House. I apologise for not being present at the start of his speech.
	Perhaps I should declare an interest in that I am slightly dyslexic. I do not have the difficulties with spelling and print which many face, being just a slow reader with a poor short-term memory. But in terms of daily frustration, in particular when dealing with the volume of papers in your Lordships' House, I can assure noble Lords that it is far more annoying than being in a wheelchair.
	Last year we took the important step of removing copyright barriers to reading for visually impaired people. The Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act 2002, ably steered through the House by my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester, was a major leap forward in opening up the world of books to blind, partially sighted and physically disabled people. At Second Reading of that Bill, I raised the need for further action to secure equal access to works of literature for visually impaired people, and I should like to return to that theme today.
	As I am sure we are all aware, the process of transcribing a book into accessible formats such as large print, audio or Braille, can be expensive and time-consuming. The National Library for the Blind has pointed out that current Braille technology allows a book in Braille to be printed in approximately 20 minutes. However, it takes around four months to scan, edit and format a print book to create an electronic Braille file for production. Due to this lengthy process, it costs the NLB approximately £750 to produce an average book of adult fiction in Braille. Obviously the time and cost associated with Braille production seriously limits the number of books that can be produced annually across the UK. The NLB itself produces only around 400 Braille books each year.
	However, if Braille producers were able to receive electronic text files directly from publishers, much of the scanning and editing process would be avoided. If all publishers were to do this, the number of Braille books produced would double. The National Library for the Blind has been approaching publishers to establish such agreements. Major publishers such as Random House and Penguin have agreed in principle, and numerous smaller publishers have signed up to the scheme. The NLB has also approached authors directly to provide digital text of their books, so that newly published books can be made available at the same time as print books. Most recently it was able to produce Michael Palin's Sahara in Braille even before it was available in the shops.
	Such bilateral agreements are obviously very welcome, but progress might be faster if there was a central repository for such files. Almost four centuries ago, the law established that a copy of every piece of published material should be deposited with the British Library so that it could be accessible to anyone who wanted to read it. It is to be hoped that that soon could be extended to copies of electronic publications. A central repository, whether in the British Library or one of the other deposit libraries, of electronic text copies of every publication to which approved bodies such as the RNIB and the NLB had constant access, could bring immense benefits. It could encourage arrangements whereby material was produced as and when required, to each individual's preferred format, rather than in bulk.
	This also highlights the need to create copyright exceptions, where necessary, for other groups of print disabled people. Many with severe dyslexia face exactly the same kind of issues as visually impaired people—the dearth of audio and clear print formats and the inconvenience of endlessly scanning books to produce accessible formats—only they still have unjust copyright barriers to contend with.
	Journalist Sunil Peck, who is visually impaired, feels it is outrageous that, in this information age when vast documents can be zapped between computers on the superhighway in seconds, he is left with no option but manually to transcribe any books he wants to read. Braille books are still few and far between. As we have heard, audio books are either too expensive or too abridged. Electronic books are usually incompatible with screen reading equipment. So Sunil has to get a print book and scan each page, one by one, into his PC. Depending on the length of the book, that can take anything from a few hours to a few days. It is both time-consuming and tedious.
	Writing on the BBC's "Ouch" website, Sunil has suggested that publishers should release books for sale as text files or on a compact disc, and that they could be sold alongside printed copies in bookshops. He has argued that it is time for publishers to wake up and realise that blind people represent an untapped market of literary consumers. Publishers' profits would increase, and thousands of visually impaired people would seize the chance to get their hands on the latest titles in order to read them while they are still hot off the press. His plea to us is this:
	"Please politicians, publishers and anyone else wielding enough influence to get things moving—sort something out to prevent accessing new books being like the thirteenth labour of Hercules".
	I hope that the Minister will hear his plea and be able to give us some encouragement today that the Government are taking action in this important area.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Addington for introducing this Question and for the extremely powerful and moving way in which he did so. I have never heard a more effective description of what it feels like to be on the wrong side of a barrier to learning.
	My late wife remembered when she encountered that barrier at the age of two and a half and decided that she must learn to read. She was in the car when her parents drove past a Guinness advertisement. Everyone in the car but her burst into hoots of laughter and she had absolutely no idea what they were laughing about. The frustration, she said, made her determined to break through that barrier. She told me that she was reading two and a half weeks after that.
	We do not all have the privilege of that kind of experience but some of us have had some remarkable ones. Two weeks ago it was my privilege to propose the health of William Shakespeare on his birthday. In the course of preparing my talk I discovered that William Shakespeare's father was illiterate. It is hard to think of a longer journey culturally traversed in one lifetime.
	There are a few lines—almost totally unknown as they happen to be in Henry VI, Part II—in which there is an indication that that may have caused a good deal of tension in the Shakespeare family. There are words put into the mouth of Jack Cade, who complains that, for his forefathers, tally and score were good enough but there had been created things scarce worthy of naming in a Christian society, like a noun and a verb. One cannot help wondering whether there is something semi-autobiographical in that.
	I am not saying that everyone will make a transition across a barrier as big as that but, by the law of averages, among all the people who are the wrong side of the barrier there should be at least one.
	I declare a number of interests. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, I declare an interest as an author. I recall to my content that I was invited to waive all of my privileges in the way of a Braille edition of my first book. No one thought that my subsequent books were worth doing it for, which is a matter of great regret to me.
	My father's rule was that the academic value of any work was in exact inverse proportion to its commercial value. I have not yet been reduced to his position of having to pay the publisher to publish my books, but here we have an example of how the market operates in a detrimental way. We have here representatives of fact and fiction but, having read and very much enjoyed the Blood Doctor, it is not for me to say which is which. But I enjoyed it very much indeed.
	I recall very vividly sitting in the round room of the Public Record Office opposite a senior colleague of very great distinction; a person who restored manners to debate in our field, where they were very badly needed; who brought us to the end of the days when R.H. Tawney could say that an erring colleague is not an Amalekite to be smitten hip and thigh. He was in his first week back after an operation for a detached retina. He was about the height of the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar, so one can imagine how low he had to bend to read a 17th century manuscript. But, recovering from his detached retina, he crouched down in an effort to read the document with an immense jeweller's lens screwed into one eye. One could feel the sense of frustration coming across the room. He was one of the most eminent 17th century historians who lived this century. I felt for him at that moment.
	If it does not get taken out that way, it gets taken out another way. John Milton—or so my mother told me when I was young—suffered acutely from his frustration in being unable to read Greek. He taught his daughters the Greek letters so that they could pronounce the words, but he did not teach them what the letters meant. So they were reading what was, to them, double Dutch.
	We read in recent newspaper reports that four out of five women between the ages of 50 and 80 are more or less full-time carers. That is the other place where the frustration falls, if it does not fall on the technology. I do not think that it is an improvement. That frustration, too, deserves remembering in the course of tonight's debate.
	On the question of large print, I remember in days gone by sitting close enough to the Woolsack to observe the print in which scripts delivered from the Woolsack were being read. They were of the sort that I envied the occupant of the Woolsack. They were of the sort that are not regularly available, and certainly not in supermarkets. I do not regard myself as being visually impaired, though perhaps I should. I did once when I broke my spectacles in the course of speaking on a very long Bill. However, when shopping in supermarkets, I have often had to ask someone for assistance in reading the small print on certain products because I am unable to read it. If I cannot do it, who else cannot read small print? In the course of considering great literature, I hope that we may also consider great food; the frustration of being shut out from it may be equally great.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, was able to say that all her books have been translated into Braille. It would be a good idea if we could all follow her example. It would be a good idea if authors were able to take a part in the responsibility for cataloguing, for listing, and for publicising their work. After all, it is their own work that they are publicising and it is perfectly fair that they should be asked to do so. But when it comes to digital reproduction, here I must plead that it is I who am on the wrong side of the barrier to learning: I simply cannot do it. When we reach that point, I hope that I may live to receive the sympathy that I offer to those who are on the wrong side of it at present.
	I strongly agree with the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, about VAT. I appreciate the importance of the doctrine of a level playing field within the European Union. Fair competition is necessary if one is to dismantle tariff barriers, but we should not treat the EU as if it were the latest version of the Berlin Wall. After all, it has been known to renegotiate its rules. In fact, the number of ministerial Statements that we have heard in this House in which it has been described as having done so is considerable.
	Therefore, because we sometimes find that an element of the European rules is not what we think it should be, we should not throw up our hands in horror and say, "Oh, the European Union; it is impossible. We can't possibly do anything". Visual impairment is not confined to the British Isles. When we come across that sort of thing, I do not understand why we should not undertake a little quiet negotiation with people who experience exactly the same problems to see whether they would consent to doing something about the situation. That does not seem to me to be an impossible request.
	Of course, and inevitably, points will be made about cost, and so they should be, because costs are real. I have indicated that authors should take a share of the cost, and I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. But I also think that one ought to consider what economists call the dependency ratio—the proportion of the population which is earning as against the proportion of the population which cannot earn and has to live on the dependency of others. Suppose William Shakespeare had never learnt to read—what would that have done for the dependency ratio? Think of the number of actors who would have been out of work.
	If you can enable people to use talents—real, rich, profitable talents, which they otherwise could not use—you create earners. If you create earners, you create taxpayers. If you create taxpayers, you create revenue. The annual reports from the Government actuary show that the number of taxpayers matters quite as much to the total revenue raised as the rate at which tax is paid—in fact, probably rather more. It always fluctuates faster than the Government actuary expects. So I think we might find that a little generosity was not only for the enlargement of the human spirit, not only for the enlargement of human rights, but even for the enrichment of the Treasury.

Lord Luke: My Lords, it is a great privilege for me to follow the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He has a completely unique way of putting his arguments and making us think. We are all most grateful, of course, to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for raising this important matter and making an eloquent speech.
	There are, as we have heard, over 2 million people in this country with uncorrectable sight loss, and many more who cannot easily read small print. At the same time, it appears that only 5 per cent of material published in print is eventually produced in accessible formats such as Braille, large print or audio. Quite clearly, therefore, the RNIB has a strong argument when it says that these people are being discriminated against.
	In February this year, the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit published its report on public libraries in which the foreword, by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, says:
	"Equality of access to information and learning is vital if we are to offer everyone the opportunity to achieve their full potential . . . my ambition is to take this vision of what libraries can offer to a wider audience".
	It states in the body of the report:
	"The value of reading stretches far beyond just to the individual—it brings social benefits. It is hard for people to be active citizens unless they can read newspapers and Government publications".
	I am not so sure about Government publications.
	It is clear that the intention is there, but what is actually being done to implement those wholly admirable aspirations? Can the Minister tell us of any concrete plans? We know that the RNIB is dissatisfied, as we heard today, with the services provided by public libraries to blind and partially sighted people. Would it not be possible to ring-fence grants to local authorities so as to target specific requirements such as the essential special staff training, appropriate equipment and, of course, more titles in alternative formats? It appears that only 25 per cent of public libraries have a specific budget for services to the blind and partially sighted.
	As so often in this country, when there is a lack of services provided for particular groups of people, at least some of the shortfall is made up by voluntary organisations, headed in this case by the RNIB. The RNIB provides an audio book service comprising some 12,000 titles. Two and a half million books are sent out to members each year.
	There is also the Talking Newspaper Association, which reaches more than 200,000 visually impaired listeners. That body receives some funding from the national lottery, but it has been turned down by the Home Office for government funding on the grounds that it operates a "leisure service". What better illustration of how the Government can speak, sadly, with two voices? They say how important reading newspapers is for producing active citizens on the one hand and, on the other, fail to persuade the Home Office to get off its backside—please excuse the phrase. At any rate, we are hugely indebted to the voluntary sector.
	We have heard some excellent speeches this evening, and I look forward to the Minister's reply. I hope that he may at least be able to promise to bring to the attention of his friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the eloquent arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, as to the iniquitous tax on audio books for no good reason.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, this has been a most impressive debate, powerfully introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, followed by a series of very significant speeches in which a number of important points were made. I shall do my best to reply to all of them. I assure the House, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who introduced the debate, that of course we regard the issue as very important. We embrace the issue enthusiastically as the debate is established.
	Access to books and publications are fundamental to the social inclusion agenda. I assure the House that the issue rightly has a high priority. The Government are committed to ensuring that those with disabilities and those who might be excluded can participate fully in all aspects of life. Across Government, different departments are tackling the question of access with a variety of innovative approaches, often establishing positive partnerships with charities and representative organisations. I hear and applaud what the noble Lord, Lord Luke, said about the important role played by charities and organisations. We all recognise that they do extremely valuable work in this area, and the Government's role is to support, encourage and listen to charities when they put forward propositions that deserve very serious consideration.
	The debate illustrates the effect of activity in this area. I offer some obvious examples. Public libraries have always been in the forefront of helping those with reading problems, whatever those problems may be. As the noble Lord, Lord Luke, noted, in February the Department for Culture, Media and Sport published the first national vision for public libraries, the Framework for the Future. The document offers a vision of libraries and information services in the next decade, to be supported by an action plan.
	The framework's main thrust is that libraries and library authorities have a responsibility to respond to the needs of their communities, and reminds practitioners that reading and access to literature is a powerful tool for social inclusion. Its absence, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, emphasised, means that when barriers exist to effective reading the cost is borne massively by the individual and the wider society too.
	The framework goes on to suggest that local authorities should consult widely when considering what services should be available and take full advantages of the benefits that today's technology has to offer. We must not forget that people have many different needs. There is a range of disabilities where the requirements and demand for books and publications in alternative formats—audio tape, large print, Moon or Braille—vary very considerably.
	Let us take, for example, books available on audio tape. Demand for that format, particularly in unabridged versions, is undoubtedly increasing rapidly. Loughborough University's libraries, information, and statistics unit researched this matter in 2001 and found that 62 per cent of those with sight problems prefer to read fiction via audio books. Set that trend against the rise in public library lending of audio formats—up to 13.2 million loans in 2000–01—and it is clear that the right sort of service is being made available against increasing demand.
	It is important that those working with or on behalf of those with sight or access problems are aware of current trends. As the House will know, a wealth of evidence-based good practice is available and needs to be promoted as widely as possible. In October 2000, Resource, the Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries, produced Library Services for visually impaired people: a Manual of Best Practice. Updated last year, it remains a definitive guide on good practice.
	The Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals also has a key role to play in promoting good practice in social inclusion and equal opportunities. One approach is its "Libraries change Lives" programme which acknowledges significant contributions to social equity. The 2003 award in this area was made, only last week, to the Portsmouth City Council library service for its work for those with sight problems. All that is important, and this debate plays its part, in publicising the achievements of the limited few in order that we can extend such achievement to the many. Indeed, both central and local government have made important strides to harness the extraordinary potential of modern technology, thereby improving services and access for disabled people. We know that the right technology can transform many people's experience of the written word, whether it be publishing on demand or other innovations.
	The new technologies are a powerful ally in helping people with reading problems. As the new technologies develop—such as books online with variable type sizes onscreen and digital sound for those with hearing problems—I am sure that many other opportunities will arise. The Government must be vigilant and take advantage of the changes as they develop.
	The Office for the E-Envoy has established a working group of representatives from the website design industry to improve access for those with access problems by encouraging the use of larger font sizes and audio options. I salute the work of the Royal National Institute for the Blind in that respect. I was present at its awards ceremony last year when it indicated those who had taken great trouble with their websites in order to meet exactly this need. It is an important innovation and we must encourage others to follow that pattern.
	We are all aware that when it comes to considering matters of public expenditure there will always be competing priorities. The Government are inevitably mindful of that. However, funding is being targeted at disability groups. For instance, all applications for capital modernisation funding to support the UK Online network, the Government's web-based guide to information and services, was obliged to include access provision for those with physical, learning or sensory disabilities. UK Online includes a public library element, "The People's Network", funded by the National Lottery through the New Opportunities Fund which allows each computer to be configured for those with sight problems.
	The Department for Education and Skills' schools access initiative supports the implementation of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, played his part in the passage of that Bill through this House. Last year, £70 million was available to support that initiative. The sum has been increased to £100 million this year and for each of the next two years. That funding can be used only for the provision of items of equipment that improve access to premises, the curriculum or information.
	There is legislation designed to improve or enhance access. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, in particular the goods and services section of the Act, places a duty on those who provide a service to the public to take reasonable steps to change policies, practice and procedures or to provide additional services to help those who would otherwise find it difficult or impossible to use that service. In January, Andrew Smith, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, announced his intention to publish a draft disability Bill later this year. The scope and content are still being finalised, but may include a duty on public bodies concerning the equalisation of opportunities for disabled people. That is an important issue for the partially sighted or those with a sight impairment.
	An important recent legislative change has been the Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act 2002, to which the noble Lord, Lord Sandberg, paid tribute. The Act introduces two new situations in which producing copies of accessible material will not infringe existing copyright. That is an extremely important consideration. The benefits will be felt by individuals with sight problems and not-for-profit organisations and educational establishments which exist to support them. The RNIB is currently working on a licensing scheme to give full implementation to the Act. Once this is complete a commencement order will be put in place. The legislation was designed to deal with the problems, often lengthy, encountered gaining clearance for copyright and I believe that it successfully balances the interests of those with sight problems and copyright owners. Those with sight problems require increased opportunities.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, referred to the issue of dyslexia. That is an important dimension of the problem we are discussing. The Department for Education and Skills issued a statutory Special Educational Needs Code of Practice in November 2001. This recognises the importance of early identification, assessment and provision for any child with special educational needs, including dyslexia. Dyslexia is also being addressed through the Government's National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies and by the Adult Basic Skills Strategy Unit. This includes support for teachers taking forward their responsibilities under the Special Educational Needs Act to which I referred earlier, and specific guidelines on providing for pupils with dyslexia.
	I turn to the question of VAT on audio tapes. That issue was addressed this evening with typical force by my noble friend Lady Rendell who brought this issue before the House a year ago in a debate on this very matter. As she indicated, on that occasion the Government did not give as positive a response as she had wished. I hope that I can give a slightly more positive response this year although I cannot promise to solve all the problems of British taxation in regard to the European Community in the course of the next three minutes.
	Suffice to say that there is a real problem about debating issues of zero-rating with the European Community, not least because at present we have extended zero-rating more widely than have most other countries in the Community. Our legitimate fear is that an attempt to debate the issue of zero-rating would leave the door wide open to potential challenges from the Community.
	I heard what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said in that regard. If I had not done so, I have no doubt that he would reiterate the point at this very moment; namely, that the European Community has a certain degree of flexibility. We intend to test that. We seek to participate fully in opportunities to which the European Community is committed at the present time to consider reduced rates of taxation. That may not mean that we meet every dimension that has been stressed, but it means that, in a way that was not possible last year in response to my noble friend, I am able to say this evening that the Government will engage in the negotiations positively, with a view to getting the rate of VAT down on audio tapes of books.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister, who is being most helpful. However, I was going to suggest a different point—that there may be other ways in which we could improve our negotiating stance within the European Union.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am sure that there are, but the noble Earl is not going to tempt me at this stage into a widespread debate on the merits of adopting a more constructive stance on the European Community. Although I have no doubt that he and I could entertain each other for many an hour on that point, I have a rather narrower brief to cope with this evening.
	I shall mention the obvious point with regard to audio books. Of course the VAT issue is something on which we would want to make progress, and I do not belittle its significance, because it forms a percentage of the costs of the books. However, my noble friend emphasised that the acute problem is that books for the partially sighted or unsighted are enormously more expensive than the comparable books that the rest of us very readily enjoy, in terms of their cost in the marketplace. That is not an easy issue to resolve.
	Reducing the gap between the costs is certainly an aspiration to which we should drive, but my noble friend will recognise that when audio books are produced, someone has to perform the act of reading them. If some people pay David Beckham for his footballing skills with Manchester United, it is only right that Stephen Fry is paid for his reading skills when he produces an audio book. It may be thought that such a benign service ought to be produced by people for free, out of the goodness of their hearts. However, my noble friend will recognise that an awful lot of people in the acting profession who are drawn on as readers for such books are not in a position to give their services free, and that there are costs involved.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I totally appreciate what the Minister says, but there a few differences. If someone wants a conventional book, they want it with a nicely bound cover. If they want the special edition, that is fine, and they pay a little extra for it. We are talking about a basic product.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord has said, and I will bear it in mind. I want to emphasise that the debate this evening has thrown up a number of very interesting suggestions on how we could make progress. I respect what he said about how we drive the costs of the books down.
	I have somewhat extended my time over the allotted span. The debate has been enormously constructive. The Government believe that we have a good record in this area. In Britain, we have a strong tradition of support for those with disabilities, and initiatives that I have outlined this evening bear witness to that. I also want to emphasise the extent to which the Government are open-minded and seek to be constructive on the number of valuable suggestions made.
	There is growing recognition of the importance of free and fair access. I assure the House that we will continue to work with key players on the matter to develop good practice in widening accessibility. Social inclusion is a principal part of that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked at the beginning of the debate why we could not discuss an element of philosophy as well as issues of practice. I assure him that the Government are serious about the concept of social inclusion. That means that we have to have due regard for the needs of the groups that we have identified this evening. I am grateful for the constructive contributions to the debate, which will advance that cause.

House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past eight o'clock.